“My other doctor has an office blog. You should have one, too. They’re really helpful.”

I hear that line a fair amount.

No, thank you.

I legitimately did try to have an office blog 7-8 years ago. I figured it might bring in a few more patients, answer FAQs from others, and give me something to do. So I did some reading, created an account on Blogger, and started one. I think my first post was on multiple sclerosis. Nothing really specific, more just generic “living with MS” tips.

I wrote another the next week, then a third post about 2 months later. Roughly 6 months after starting I gave up and quietly deleted the account.

I have no idea how some doctors have time for that sort of thing. They must have more free time than I do. Maybe they pay someone to write the posts for them. But it didn’t take me long to realize I didn’t have the time, or personal interest, to make it worthwhile. Besides, generic medical blogs spouting common sense (“Eat more vegetables! Exercise!”) are a dime a dozen. To put anything more specific in this day and age runs the risk of litigation.

I like writing, as evidenced by this column. But the time and effort that a regular office blog demanded was beyond what I could put into it, and the nature of the writing needed was more milquetoast than I enjoyed doing.

Time is, perhaps, the most precious commodity we have. Writing a nondescript office blog, as I learned, definitely wasn’t my cup of tea. I’m pretty sure an office Twitter account would be the same, and I have no interest in opening that door.

If another doctor wants to invest time in a blog, that’s fine. I hope it is something worthwhile and that they enjoy it. If a patient thinks that makes them a better doctor, they can.

But not me. If I’m going to devote time to my work, I’ll do it in the best way I know, and the one I still enjoy: seeing and treating patients.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

“My other doctor has an office blog. You should have one, too. They’re really helpful.”

I hear that line a fair amount.

No, thank you.

I legitimately did try to have an office blog 7-8 years ago. I figured it might bring in a few more patients, answer FAQs from others, and give me something to do. So I did some reading, created an account on Blogger, and started one. I think my first post was on multiple sclerosis. Nothing really specific, more just generic “living with MS” tips.

I wrote another the next week, then a third post about 2 months later. Roughly 6 months after starting I gave up and quietly deleted the account.

I have no idea how some doctors have time for that sort of thing. They must have more free time than I do. Maybe they pay someone to write the posts for them. But it didn’t take me long to realize I didn’t have the time, or personal interest, to make it worthwhile. Besides, generic medical blogs spouting common sense (“Eat more vegetables! Exercise!”) are a dime a dozen. To put anything more specific in this day and age runs the risk of litigation.

I like writing, as evidenced by this column. But the time and effort that a regular office blog demanded was beyond what I could put into it, and the nature of the writing needed was more milquetoast than I enjoyed doing.

Time is, perhaps, the most precious commodity we have. Writing a nondescript office blog, as I learned, definitely wasn’t my cup of tea. I’m pretty sure an office Twitter account would be the same, and I have no interest in opening that door.

If another doctor wants to invest time in a blog, that’s fine. I hope it is something worthwhile and that they enjoy it. If a patient thinks that makes them a better doctor, they can.

But not me. If I’m going to devote time to my work, I’ll do it in the best way I know, and the one I still enjoy: seeing and treating patients.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

“My other doctor has an office blog. You should have one, too. They’re really helpful.”

I hear that line a fair amount.

No, thank you.

I legitimately did try to have an office blog 7-8 years ago. I figured it might bring in a few more patients, answer FAQs from others, and give me something to do. So I did some reading, created an account on Blogger, and started one. I think my first post was on multiple sclerosis. Nothing really specific, more just generic “living with MS” tips.

I wrote another the next week, then a third post about 2 months later. Roughly 6 months after starting I gave up and quietly deleted the account.

I have no idea how some doctors have time for that sort of thing. They must have more free time than I do. Maybe they pay someone to write the posts for them. But it didn’t take me long to realize I didn’t have the time, or personal interest, to make it worthwhile. Besides, generic medical blogs spouting common sense (“Eat more vegetables! Exercise!”) are a dime a dozen. To put anything more specific in this day and age runs the risk of litigation.

I like writing, as evidenced by this column. But the time and effort that a regular office blog demanded was beyond what I could put into it, and the nature of the writing needed was more milquetoast than I enjoyed doing.

Time is, perhaps, the most precious commodity we have. Writing a nondescript office blog, as I learned, definitely wasn’t my cup of tea. I’m pretty sure an office Twitter account would be the same, and I have no interest in opening that door.

If another doctor wants to invest time in a blog, that’s fine. I hope it is something worthwhile and that they enjoy it. If a patient thinks that makes them a better doctor, they can.

But not me. If I’m going to devote time to my work, I’ll do it in the best way I know, and the one I still enjoy: seeing and treating patients.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Alzheimer’s disease may have a causal effect on sleep patterns, but disturbed sleep does not appear to cause Alzheimer’s disease, new research suggests.

The causal association between disturbed sleep and Alzheimer’s disease that has been observed in previous studies may have resulted from reverse causation, the researchers noted. The current Mendelian randomization analysis also failed to find a causal relationship between Alzheimer’s disease and major depressive disorder. Future studies should examine the genetic heterogeneity of depression syndromes to test for causal relationships between subtypes of depression with distinct causes and Alzheimer’s disease.

Mendelian randomization compares individuals who have different genetic profiles for a given exposure. “Given that genetic variants are inherited at random, these two groups are comparable, and any differences are not likely to be due to other associated factors,” such as confounding bias, said corresponding author Abbas Dehghan, PhD, reader in cardiometabolic disease epidemiology at Imperial College London. “Moreover, given that genetic information is constant over the lifetime, the chances for reverse causation are small.”

The findings were published online August 19 in Neurology.

Causal questions

Many patients with late-life neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease have comorbid depression, but whether these two disorders have a causal relationship or common risk factors has been unclear, the investigators noted. Abnormal sleep patterns are symptoms of both depression and Alzheimer’s disease. Abnormal sleep is also associated with cognitive decline and anxiety.

The researchers hypothesized that sleep causally affects major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease but that there is no causal relationship between major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease. They conducted a bidirectional, two-sample Mendelian randomization study to test these hypotheses.

The investigators conducted genomewide association studies (GWASs) using data from the prospective, population-based U.K. Biobank. Sleep phenotypes were measured by self-report or accelerometer. Genetic associations were derived from 403,195 patients for chronotype, 237,627 patients for insomnia, 446,118 people for sleep duration, and 85,670 people for accelerometer-derived phenotypes.

Two binary variables from sleep duration were derived: short sleep (duration of less than 7 hours) and long sleep (duration of 9 or more hours). A sleep episode was defined as a period of at least 5 minutes with a change on the dorsal-ventral axis of less than 5 degrees. The durations of all sleep episodes were added to calculate total sleep duration.

Major depressive disorder was diagnosed clinically in accordance with DSM-IV criteria. Genetic associations were derived from 9,240 case patients and 9,519 control participants. Alzheimer’s disease was diagnosed on the basis of physician examination or autopsy results. Genetic associations were obtained from a meta-analysis of GWAS on participants of European ancestry in the International Genomics of Alzheimer’s Project, which included 21,982 case patients and 41,944 control participants.

More risk factor research needed

Results showed no causal relationships between sleep-related phenotypes and major depressive disorder in either direction. Causal relationships between major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease were found in both directions, but neither was statistically significant.

A genetically higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease was associated with being a “morning person,” being at decreased risk for insomnia, having shorter sleep duration on self-report and accelerometer, having decreased likelihood of reporting long sleep, having an earlier timing of the least active 5 hours, and having a smaller number of sleep episodes. However, no analysis supported a causal effect of sleep-related phenotypes on risk for Alzheimer’s disease.

Because APOE4 can influence disease processes that may contribute to Alzheimer’s disease risk, the investigators also conducted a sensitivity analysis that excluded APOE single-nucleotide polymorphisms. In this analysis, the causal associations of Alzheimer’s disease with self-reported and accelerometer-based sleep duration were not significant. The sensitivity analysis did support the other causal associations between Alzheimer’s disease and sleep phenotypes, however.

The causal associations between major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease observed in other studies may have been the result of confounding, and the participants may have had other associated characteristics that put them at risk for the disease, said Dr. Dehghan. Furthermore, the previous studies considered various sleep phenotypes together, whereas in the current study, the investigators examined them separately.

The results suggest that preclinical and clinical Alzheimer’s disease may affect sleep phenotypes differently. Sleep management thus could be an important approach to improving quality of life for patients with Alzheimer’s disease, the researchers wrote.

“Our study indicates that depression and sleep disorders are not likely to be a causal factor for Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Dehghan said. “We need to search for other risk factors for the prevention of Alzheimer’s disease.”

Several strengths, lacks details

Walter A. Kukull, PhD, professor of epidemiology and director of the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center at the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that the investigators appear to have implemented their chosen methods of causal association analysis well. “They attempted to examine the direction of the causal arrow for risk factors … and that is a step usually not well examined in other studies.”

He added that the collection of objective measures, such as of sleep, is another strength of the study.

However, “the common weakness of the basic GWAS sample is that clinical symptomatology determined Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis. Thus, asymptomatic or very mildly symptomatic persons with Alzheimer’s disease pathology in their brains were likely included among normal controls,” said Dr. Kukull, who was not involved with the research.

Because of an apparent lack of biomarker data, patients who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease may in fact have had a different form of dementia. Given the nature of their data, the investigators could have done little to compensate for these possibilities, Dr. Kukull added. In addition, the article lacks details that would improve the interpretation of the results.

“Timing is everything with regard to potential associations between risk factor and outcome,” Dr. Kukull said. “With the exceptions of genes, it would be nice to know more about the timing of risk factors’ onset and Alzheimer’s disease onset.”

Still, the results indicate potential areas of future study, he noted. “Primarily, further research must address the question of pathological onset of disease and misclassification of diagnosis in both cases and controls due to lack of biomarker-confirmed diagnosis. Then research can also struggle with the timing of potential risk factors with respect to disease.”

The study was funded by the U.K. Dementia Research Institute. Dr. Dehghan and Dr. Kukull reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Alzheimer’s disease may have a causal effect on sleep patterns, but disturbed sleep does not appear to cause Alzheimer’s disease, new research suggests.

The causal association between disturbed sleep and Alzheimer’s disease that has been observed in previous studies may have resulted from reverse causation, the researchers noted. The current Mendelian randomization analysis also failed to find a causal relationship between Alzheimer’s disease and major depressive disorder. Future studies should examine the genetic heterogeneity of depression syndromes to test for causal relationships between subtypes of depression with distinct causes and Alzheimer’s disease.

Mendelian randomization compares individuals who have different genetic profiles for a given exposure. “Given that genetic variants are inherited at random, these two groups are comparable, and any differences are not likely to be due to other associated factors,” such as confounding bias, said corresponding author Abbas Dehghan, PhD, reader in cardiometabolic disease epidemiology at Imperial College London. “Moreover, given that genetic information is constant over the lifetime, the chances for reverse causation are small.”

The findings were published online August 19 in Neurology.

Causal questions

Many patients with late-life neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease have comorbid depression, but whether these two disorders have a causal relationship or common risk factors has been unclear, the investigators noted. Abnormal sleep patterns are symptoms of both depression and Alzheimer’s disease. Abnormal sleep is also associated with cognitive decline and anxiety.

The researchers hypothesized that sleep causally affects major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease but that there is no causal relationship between major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease. They conducted a bidirectional, two-sample Mendelian randomization study to test these hypotheses.

The investigators conducted genomewide association studies (GWASs) using data from the prospective, population-based U.K. Biobank. Sleep phenotypes were measured by self-report or accelerometer. Genetic associations were derived from 403,195 patients for chronotype, 237,627 patients for insomnia, 446,118 people for sleep duration, and 85,670 people for accelerometer-derived phenotypes.

Two binary variables from sleep duration were derived: short sleep (duration of less than 7 hours) and long sleep (duration of 9 or more hours). A sleep episode was defined as a period of at least 5 minutes with a change on the dorsal-ventral axis of less than 5 degrees. The durations of all sleep episodes were added to calculate total sleep duration.

Major depressive disorder was diagnosed clinically in accordance with DSM-IV criteria. Genetic associations were derived from 9,240 case patients and 9,519 control participants. Alzheimer’s disease was diagnosed on the basis of physician examination or autopsy results. Genetic associations were obtained from a meta-analysis of GWAS on participants of European ancestry in the International Genomics of Alzheimer’s Project, which included 21,982 case patients and 41,944 control participants.

More risk factor research needed

Results showed no causal relationships between sleep-related phenotypes and major depressive disorder in either direction. Causal relationships between major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease were found in both directions, but neither was statistically significant.

A genetically higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease was associated with being a “morning person,” being at decreased risk for insomnia, having shorter sleep duration on self-report and accelerometer, having decreased likelihood of reporting long sleep, having an earlier timing of the least active 5 hours, and having a smaller number of sleep episodes. However, no analysis supported a causal effect of sleep-related phenotypes on risk for Alzheimer’s disease.

Because APOE4 can influence disease processes that may contribute to Alzheimer’s disease risk, the investigators also conducted a sensitivity analysis that excluded APOE single-nucleotide polymorphisms. In this analysis, the causal associations of Alzheimer’s disease with self-reported and accelerometer-based sleep duration were not significant. The sensitivity analysis did support the other causal associations between Alzheimer’s disease and sleep phenotypes, however.

The causal associations between major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease observed in other studies may have been the result of confounding, and the participants may have had other associated characteristics that put them at risk for the disease, said Dr. Dehghan. Furthermore, the previous studies considered various sleep phenotypes together, whereas in the current study, the investigators examined them separately.

The results suggest that preclinical and clinical Alzheimer’s disease may affect sleep phenotypes differently. Sleep management thus could be an important approach to improving quality of life for patients with Alzheimer’s disease, the researchers wrote.

“Our study indicates that depression and sleep disorders are not likely to be a causal factor for Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Dehghan said. “We need to search for other risk factors for the prevention of Alzheimer’s disease.”

Several strengths, lacks details

Walter A. Kukull, PhD, professor of epidemiology and director of the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center at the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that the investigators appear to have implemented their chosen methods of causal association analysis well. “They attempted to examine the direction of the causal arrow for risk factors … and that is a step usually not well examined in other studies.”

He added that the collection of objective measures, such as of sleep, is another strength of the study.

However, “the common weakness of the basic GWAS sample is that clinical symptomatology determined Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis. Thus, asymptomatic or very mildly symptomatic persons with Alzheimer’s disease pathology in their brains were likely included among normal controls,” said Dr. Kukull, who was not involved with the research.

Because of an apparent lack of biomarker data, patients who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease may in fact have had a different form of dementia. Given the nature of their data, the investigators could have done little to compensate for these possibilities, Dr. Kukull added. In addition, the article lacks details that would improve the interpretation of the results.

“Timing is everything with regard to potential associations between risk factor and outcome,” Dr. Kukull said. “With the exceptions of genes, it would be nice to know more about the timing of risk factors’ onset and Alzheimer’s disease onset.”

Still, the results indicate potential areas of future study, he noted. “Primarily, further research must address the question of pathological onset of disease and misclassification of diagnosis in both cases and controls due to lack of biomarker-confirmed diagnosis. Then research can also struggle with the timing of potential risk factors with respect to disease.”

The study was funded by the U.K. Dementia Research Institute. Dr. Dehghan and Dr. Kukull reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Alzheimer’s disease may have a causal effect on sleep patterns, but disturbed sleep does not appear to cause Alzheimer’s disease, new research suggests.

The causal association between disturbed sleep and Alzheimer’s disease that has been observed in previous studies may have resulted from reverse causation, the researchers noted. The current Mendelian randomization analysis also failed to find a causal relationship between Alzheimer’s disease and major depressive disorder. Future studies should examine the genetic heterogeneity of depression syndromes to test for causal relationships between subtypes of depression with distinct causes and Alzheimer’s disease.

Mendelian randomization compares individuals who have different genetic profiles for a given exposure. “Given that genetic variants are inherited at random, these two groups are comparable, and any differences are not likely to be due to other associated factors,” such as confounding bias, said corresponding author Abbas Dehghan, PhD, reader in cardiometabolic disease epidemiology at Imperial College London. “Moreover, given that genetic information is constant over the lifetime, the chances for reverse causation are small.”

The findings were published online August 19 in Neurology.

Causal questions

Many patients with late-life neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease have comorbid depression, but whether these two disorders have a causal relationship or common risk factors has been unclear, the investigators noted. Abnormal sleep patterns are symptoms of both depression and Alzheimer’s disease. Abnormal sleep is also associated with cognitive decline and anxiety.

The researchers hypothesized that sleep causally affects major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease but that there is no causal relationship between major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease. They conducted a bidirectional, two-sample Mendelian randomization study to test these hypotheses.

The investigators conducted genomewide association studies (GWASs) using data from the prospective, population-based U.K. Biobank. Sleep phenotypes were measured by self-report or accelerometer. Genetic associations were derived from 403,195 patients for chronotype, 237,627 patients for insomnia, 446,118 people for sleep duration, and 85,670 people for accelerometer-derived phenotypes.

Two binary variables from sleep duration were derived: short sleep (duration of less than 7 hours) and long sleep (duration of 9 or more hours). A sleep episode was defined as a period of at least 5 minutes with a change on the dorsal-ventral axis of less than 5 degrees. The durations of all sleep episodes were added to calculate total sleep duration.

Major depressive disorder was diagnosed clinically in accordance with DSM-IV criteria. Genetic associations were derived from 9,240 case patients and 9,519 control participants. Alzheimer’s disease was diagnosed on the basis of physician examination or autopsy results. Genetic associations were obtained from a meta-analysis of GWAS on participants of European ancestry in the International Genomics of Alzheimer’s Project, which included 21,982 case patients and 41,944 control participants.

More risk factor research needed

Results showed no causal relationships between sleep-related phenotypes and major depressive disorder in either direction. Causal relationships between major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease were found in both directions, but neither was statistically significant.

A genetically higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease was associated with being a “morning person,” being at decreased risk for insomnia, having shorter sleep duration on self-report and accelerometer, having decreased likelihood of reporting long sleep, having an earlier timing of the least active 5 hours, and having a smaller number of sleep episodes. However, no analysis supported a causal effect of sleep-related phenotypes on risk for Alzheimer’s disease.

Because APOE4 can influence disease processes that may contribute to Alzheimer’s disease risk, the investigators also conducted a sensitivity analysis that excluded APOE single-nucleotide polymorphisms. In this analysis, the causal associations of Alzheimer’s disease with self-reported and accelerometer-based sleep duration were not significant. The sensitivity analysis did support the other causal associations between Alzheimer’s disease and sleep phenotypes, however.

The causal associations between major depressive disorder and Alzheimer’s disease observed in other studies may have been the result of confounding, and the participants may have had other associated characteristics that put them at risk for the disease, said Dr. Dehghan. Furthermore, the previous studies considered various sleep phenotypes together, whereas in the current study, the investigators examined them separately.

The results suggest that preclinical and clinical Alzheimer’s disease may affect sleep phenotypes differently. Sleep management thus could be an important approach to improving quality of life for patients with Alzheimer’s disease, the researchers wrote.

“Our study indicates that depression and sleep disorders are not likely to be a causal factor for Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Dehghan said. “We need to search for other risk factors for the prevention of Alzheimer’s disease.”

Several strengths, lacks details

Walter A. Kukull, PhD, professor of epidemiology and director of the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center at the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that the investigators appear to have implemented their chosen methods of causal association analysis well. “They attempted to examine the direction of the causal arrow for risk factors … and that is a step usually not well examined in other studies.”

He added that the collection of objective measures, such as of sleep, is another strength of the study.

However, “the common weakness of the basic GWAS sample is that clinical symptomatology determined Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis. Thus, asymptomatic or very mildly symptomatic persons with Alzheimer’s disease pathology in their brains were likely included among normal controls,” said Dr. Kukull, who was not involved with the research.

Because of an apparent lack of biomarker data, patients who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease may in fact have had a different form of dementia. Given the nature of their data, the investigators could have done little to compensate for these possibilities, Dr. Kukull added. In addition, the article lacks details that would improve the interpretation of the results.

“Timing is everything with regard to potential associations between risk factor and outcome,” Dr. Kukull said. “With the exceptions of genes, it would be nice to know more about the timing of risk factors’ onset and Alzheimer’s disease onset.”

Still, the results indicate potential areas of future study, he noted. “Primarily, further research must address the question of pathological onset of disease and misclassification of diagnosis in both cases and controls due to lack of biomarker-confirmed diagnosis. Then research can also struggle with the timing of potential risk factors with respect to disease.”

The study was funded by the U.K. Dementia Research Institute. Dr. Dehghan and Dr. Kukull reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The United Kingdom’s National Obesity Forum has apparently decided that returning to school this fall in the middle of a pandemic isn’t stressful enough for kids, and is recommending that its National Child Measurement Programme be expanded to have 4- to 5-year-old and 10- to 11-year-old children weighed when they return to the classroom – and then weighed again in the spring – in a bid to tackle COVID-19–related gains.

It’s difficult to conceive a single plausible mechanism by which this recommendation could be helpful. Given that weight is, by a substantial margin, the No. 1 reported cause of schoolyard bullying, it’s certainly unlikely that children with obesity don’t already know that they have it. It’s also unlikely that they don’t know that obesity confers risks to health, given the near constant drumbeats of concern percussed by the media and public health authorities, and the fact that watching people with obesity be blamed, shamed, and berated for their condition has in the past 2 decades become a regularly repeated prime-time reality show spectacle.

It’s also unlikely, especially in younger grades, to be something within a child’s direct control.

What about the parents? Well, given that they dress their children and that changes in weight affect clothing sizes and fit, they’re already aware if their kids are gaining weight. And like their children, they have been exposed to constant public health alarms around obesity.

Many parents will have seen their time and resources, both real and mental, become significantly impaired during the time of COVID-19, which in turn understandably challenges change. Simply put, permanent intentional behavior change in the name of health requires tremendous privilege and is elusive for many people even during easier times. For non–evidence-based proof of this assertion, simply reflect on all of your own best-laid intentions and plans that might have been good for your health (fitness, relationships, CME, etc.) that you let slide despite probably having far more privilege than the average person.

Then, of course, there is the hugely inconvenient truth that we have yet to see the development of a parent- or child-based educational intervention or directive for weight gain that has shown itself to be beneficial on a population level.
 

Can something else be done instead?

At this point, we can only speculate about the potential risks associated with school room weigh-ins because randomized controlled trials, thankfully, have not been conducted to explore this area. But I can certainly tell you that I have met many adult patients in my office who traced their lifetime of yo-yo dieting – along with a history of teenage eating disorders, at times – to their well-intentioned physician, school nurse, gym teacher, or parent using a scale to measure their weights. And in doing so, they were teaching that scales measure health, happiness, success, self-worth, and effort.

If governments are concerned about weight gain in children, they need to look to initiatives that will help all children and parents. Weighing them will not somehow inspire parents or kids to discover an as-yet unknown effective childhood obesity treatment. Changes that would be helpful may include:

• Banning food advertisements to children.
• Reforming school cafeteria meals and then ensuring that school meals are made available to children during COVID-19–related school shutdowns.
• Bringing back home economics classes to teach children how to cook (and perhaps doing the same for parents during school off-hours or in community centers).
• Enacting sugar-sweetened beverage taxes and using revenues to fund aforementioned reforms and programs, along with others, which might include the subsidization of fresh produce.
• Reforming front-of-package health claims for foods with questionable nutritional quality.

Given that there is literally no age category in any country on the planet that hasn’t seen rising weights, this is clearly not a disease reflecting a pandemic loss of willpower. Rather, this is a disease of the world’s changing food environments and culture, and until we address both through systemic changes, schemes such as the one being proposed by the UK National Obesity Forum are far more likely to do harm than good.

Yoni Freedhoff is associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa and medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute, a nonsurgical weight management center. He is one of Canada’s most outspoken obesity experts and the author of “The Diet Fix: Why Diets Fail and How to Make Yours Work.” A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The United Kingdom’s National Obesity Forum has apparently decided that returning to school this fall in the middle of a pandemic isn’t stressful enough for kids, and is recommending that its National Child Measurement Programme be expanded to have 4- to 5-year-old and 10- to 11-year-old children weighed when they return to the classroom – and then weighed again in the spring – in a bid to tackle COVID-19–related gains.

It’s difficult to conceive a single plausible mechanism by which this recommendation could be helpful. Given that weight is, by a substantial margin, the No. 1 reported cause of schoolyard bullying, it’s certainly unlikely that children with obesity don’t already know that they have it. It’s also unlikely that they don’t know that obesity confers risks to health, given the near constant drumbeats of concern percussed by the media and public health authorities, and the fact that watching people with obesity be blamed, shamed, and berated for their condition has in the past 2 decades become a regularly repeated prime-time reality show spectacle.

It’s also unlikely, especially in younger grades, to be something within a child’s direct control.

What about the parents? Well, given that they dress their children and that changes in weight affect clothing sizes and fit, they’re already aware if their kids are gaining weight. And like their children, they have been exposed to constant public health alarms around obesity.

Many parents will have seen their time and resources, both real and mental, become significantly impaired during the time of COVID-19, which in turn understandably challenges change. Simply put, permanent intentional behavior change in the name of health requires tremendous privilege and is elusive for many people even during easier times. For non–evidence-based proof of this assertion, simply reflect on all of your own best-laid intentions and plans that might have been good for your health (fitness, relationships, CME, etc.) that you let slide despite probably having far more privilege than the average person.

Then, of course, there is the hugely inconvenient truth that we have yet to see the development of a parent- or child-based educational intervention or directive for weight gain that has shown itself to be beneficial on a population level.
 

Can something else be done instead?

At this point, we can only speculate about the potential risks associated with school room weigh-ins because randomized controlled trials, thankfully, have not been conducted to explore this area. But I can certainly tell you that I have met many adult patients in my office who traced their lifetime of yo-yo dieting – along with a history of teenage eating disorders, at times – to their well-intentioned physician, school nurse, gym teacher, or parent using a scale to measure their weights. And in doing so, they were teaching that scales measure health, happiness, success, self-worth, and effort.

If governments are concerned about weight gain in children, they need to look to initiatives that will help all children and parents. Weighing them will not somehow inspire parents or kids to discover an as-yet unknown effective childhood obesity treatment. Changes that would be helpful may include:

• Banning food advertisements to children.
• Reforming school cafeteria meals and then ensuring that school meals are made available to children during COVID-19–related school shutdowns.
• Bringing back home economics classes to teach children how to cook (and perhaps doing the same for parents during school off-hours or in community centers).
• Enacting sugar-sweetened beverage taxes and using revenues to fund aforementioned reforms and programs, along with others, which might include the subsidization of fresh produce.
• Reforming front-of-package health claims for foods with questionable nutritional quality.

Given that there is literally no age category in any country on the planet that hasn’t seen rising weights, this is clearly not a disease reflecting a pandemic loss of willpower. Rather, this is a disease of the world’s changing food environments and culture, and until we address both through systemic changes, schemes such as the one being proposed by the UK National Obesity Forum are far more likely to do harm than good.

Yoni Freedhoff is associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa and medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute, a nonsurgical weight management center. He is one of Canada’s most outspoken obesity experts and the author of “The Diet Fix: Why Diets Fail and How to Make Yours Work.” A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The United Kingdom’s National Obesity Forum has apparently decided that returning to school this fall in the middle of a pandemic isn’t stressful enough for kids, and is recommending that its National Child Measurement Programme be expanded to have 4- to 5-year-old and 10- to 11-year-old children weighed when they return to the classroom – and then weighed again in the spring – in a bid to tackle COVID-19–related gains.

It’s difficult to conceive a single plausible mechanism by which this recommendation could be helpful. Given that weight is, by a substantial margin, the No. 1 reported cause of schoolyard bullying, it’s certainly unlikely that children with obesity don’t already know that they have it. It’s also unlikely that they don’t know that obesity confers risks to health, given the near constant drumbeats of concern percussed by the media and public health authorities, and the fact that watching people with obesity be blamed, shamed, and berated for their condition has in the past 2 decades become a regularly repeated prime-time reality show spectacle.

It’s also unlikely, especially in younger grades, to be something within a child’s direct control.

What about the parents? Well, given that they dress their children and that changes in weight affect clothing sizes and fit, they’re already aware if their kids are gaining weight. And like their children, they have been exposed to constant public health alarms around obesity.

Many parents will have seen their time and resources, both real and mental, become significantly impaired during the time of COVID-19, which in turn understandably challenges change. Simply put, permanent intentional behavior change in the name of health requires tremendous privilege and is elusive for many people even during easier times. For non–evidence-based proof of this assertion, simply reflect on all of your own best-laid intentions and plans that might have been good for your health (fitness, relationships, CME, etc.) that you let slide despite probably having far more privilege than the average person.

Then, of course, there is the hugely inconvenient truth that we have yet to see the development of a parent- or child-based educational intervention or directive for weight gain that has shown itself to be beneficial on a population level.
 

Can something else be done instead?

At this point, we can only speculate about the potential risks associated with school room weigh-ins because randomized controlled trials, thankfully, have not been conducted to explore this area. But I can certainly tell you that I have met many adult patients in my office who traced their lifetime of yo-yo dieting – along with a history of teenage eating disorders, at times – to their well-intentioned physician, school nurse, gym teacher, or parent using a scale to measure their weights. And in doing so, they were teaching that scales measure health, happiness, success, self-worth, and effort.

If governments are concerned about weight gain in children, they need to look to initiatives that will help all children and parents. Weighing them will not somehow inspire parents or kids to discover an as-yet unknown effective childhood obesity treatment. Changes that would be helpful may include:

• Banning food advertisements to children.
• Reforming school cafeteria meals and then ensuring that school meals are made available to children during COVID-19–related school shutdowns.
• Bringing back home economics classes to teach children how to cook (and perhaps doing the same for parents during school off-hours or in community centers).
• Enacting sugar-sweetened beverage taxes and using revenues to fund aforementioned reforms and programs, along with others, which might include the subsidization of fresh produce.
• Reforming front-of-package health claims for foods with questionable nutritional quality.

Given that there is literally no age category in any country on the planet that hasn’t seen rising weights, this is clearly not a disease reflecting a pandemic loss of willpower. Rather, this is a disease of the world’s changing food environments and culture, and until we address both through systemic changes, schemes such as the one being proposed by the UK National Obesity Forum are far more likely to do harm than good.

Yoni Freedhoff is associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa and medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute, a nonsurgical weight management center. He is one of Canada’s most outspoken obesity experts and the author of “The Diet Fix: Why Diets Fail and How to Make Yours Work.” A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved phase one clinical trials for a synthetic cannabinoid drug designed to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a life-threatening lung condition which may occur in severe cases of the novel coronavirus, Forbes reported.

ARDS can be triggered by over-creation of cytokines, proteins which tell the body to produce more inflammation, Forbes said.

The drug going to clinical trials, ARDS-003, would “dampen the cytokine release” and prevent development of ARDS, Tetra Bio-Pharma company CEO and chief regulatory officer Guy Chamberland, MD, said in a news release.

Consequences of ARDS include scarring of the lungs and organ injury caused by the decrease in blood to the tissue, the release said.

“The FDA repeatedly stated that they want clinical trials for COVID-19 to begin as soon as possible, as long as they meet regulatory requirements,” the news release said. “The medical community is in urgent need of drugs that can reduce the strength and duration of the severe inflammation. It is anticipated that this type of new drug would favorably impact health care and possibly reduce the negative health outcomes post infection.”

ARDS-003 works by binding to CB2 receptors, one of two main receptors in the endocannabinoid system which modulate inflammation and cytokine activity, Forbes said. CB2 receptors don’t bring on a psychoactive high.

Phase one clinical trials would begin enrolling participants in December to determine if the drug is safe, Chamberland said, according to Forbes.

If phase one is successful, phase two would test the drug on a larger group in the second quarter of 2021 to assess safety and tolerability for people who have COVID-19. 

If phase two is successful, the company may seek emergency authorization through the FDA, Chamberland said.  Phase three would start at the end of 2021.

Tetra Bio-Pharma says it has already contracted with Dalton Pharma Services to manufacture the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), HU-308, and the finished drug product ARDS-003.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved phase one clinical trials for a synthetic cannabinoid drug designed to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a life-threatening lung condition which may occur in severe cases of the novel coronavirus, Forbes reported.

ARDS can be triggered by over-creation of cytokines, proteins which tell the body to produce more inflammation, Forbes said.

The drug going to clinical trials, ARDS-003, would “dampen the cytokine release” and prevent development of ARDS, Tetra Bio-Pharma company CEO and chief regulatory officer Guy Chamberland, MD, said in a news release.

Consequences of ARDS include scarring of the lungs and organ injury caused by the decrease in blood to the tissue, the release said.

“The FDA repeatedly stated that they want clinical trials for COVID-19 to begin as soon as possible, as long as they meet regulatory requirements,” the news release said. “The medical community is in urgent need of drugs that can reduce the strength and duration of the severe inflammation. It is anticipated that this type of new drug would favorably impact health care and possibly reduce the negative health outcomes post infection.”

ARDS-003 works by binding to CB2 receptors, one of two main receptors in the endocannabinoid system which modulate inflammation and cytokine activity, Forbes said. CB2 receptors don’t bring on a psychoactive high.

Phase one clinical trials would begin enrolling participants in December to determine if the drug is safe, Chamberland said, according to Forbes.

If phase one is successful, phase two would test the drug on a larger group in the second quarter of 2021 to assess safety and tolerability for people who have COVID-19. 

If phase two is successful, the company may seek emergency authorization through the FDA, Chamberland said.  Phase three would start at the end of 2021.

Tetra Bio-Pharma says it has already contracted with Dalton Pharma Services to manufacture the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), HU-308, and the finished drug product ARDS-003.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved phase one clinical trials for a synthetic cannabinoid drug designed to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a life-threatening lung condition which may occur in severe cases of the novel coronavirus, Forbes reported.

ARDS can be triggered by over-creation of cytokines, proteins which tell the body to produce more inflammation, Forbes said.

The drug going to clinical trials, ARDS-003, would “dampen the cytokine release” and prevent development of ARDS, Tetra Bio-Pharma company CEO and chief regulatory officer Guy Chamberland, MD, said in a news release.

Consequences of ARDS include scarring of the lungs and organ injury caused by the decrease in blood to the tissue, the release said.

“The FDA repeatedly stated that they want clinical trials for COVID-19 to begin as soon as possible, as long as they meet regulatory requirements,” the news release said. “The medical community is in urgent need of drugs that can reduce the strength and duration of the severe inflammation. It is anticipated that this type of new drug would favorably impact health care and possibly reduce the negative health outcomes post infection.”

ARDS-003 works by binding to CB2 receptors, one of two main receptors in the endocannabinoid system which modulate inflammation and cytokine activity, Forbes said. CB2 receptors don’t bring on a psychoactive high.

Phase one clinical trials would begin enrolling participants in December to determine if the drug is safe, Chamberland said, according to Forbes.

If phase one is successful, phase two would test the drug on a larger group in the second quarter of 2021 to assess safety and tolerability for people who have COVID-19. 

If phase two is successful, the company may seek emergency authorization through the FDA, Chamberland said.  Phase three would start at the end of 2021.

Tetra Bio-Pharma says it has already contracted with Dalton Pharma Services to manufacture the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), HU-308, and the finished drug product ARDS-003.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers in Hong Kong say they’ve confirmed that a person can be infected with COVID-19 twice.

There have been sporadic accounts on social media sites of people who say they’ve gotten COVID-19 twice. But scientists have been skeptical about that possibility, saying there’s no evidence it happens.

The new proof comes from a 33-year-old man in Hong Kong who first caught COVID-19 in March. He was tested for the coronavirus after he developed a cough, sore throat, fever, and a headache for 3 days. He stayed in the hospital until he twice tested negative for the virus in mid-April.

On Aug. 15, the man returned to Hong Kong from a recent trip to Spain and the United Kingdom, areas that have recently seen a resurgence of COVID-19 cases. At the airport, he was screened for COVID-19 with a test that checks saliva for the virus. He tested positive, but this time, had no symptoms. He was taken to the hospital for monitoring. His viral load – the amount of virus he had in his body – went down over time, suggesting that his immune system was taking care of the intrusion on its own.

The special thing about his case is that each time he was hospitalized, doctors sequenced the genome of the virus that infected him. It was slightly different from one infection to the next, suggesting that the virus had mutated – or changed – in the 4 months between his infections. It also proves that it’s possible for this coronavirus to infect the same person twice.

Experts with the World Health Organization responded to the case at a news briefing.

“What we are learning about infection is that people do develop an immune response. What is not completely clear yet is how strong that immune response is and for how long that immune response lasts,” said Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist with the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland.

A study on the man’s case is being prepared for publication in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases. Experts say the finding shouldn’t cause alarm, but it does have important implications for the development of herd immunity and efforts to come up with vaccines and treatments.

“This appears to be pretty clear-cut evidence of reinfection because of sequencing and isolation of two different viruses,” said Gregory Poland, MD, an expert on vaccine development and immunology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “The big unknown is how often is this happening,” he said. More studies are needed to learn whether this was a rare case or something that is happening often.
 

Past experience guides present

Until we know more, Dr. Poland said, the possibility of getting COVID-19 twice shouldn’t make anyone worry.

This also happens with other kinds of coronaviruses – the ones that cause common colds. Those coronaviruses change slightly each year as they circle the globe, which allows them to keep spreading and causing their more run-of-the-mill kind of misery.

It also happens with seasonal flu. It is the reason people have to get vaccinated against the flu year after year, and why the flu vaccine has to change slightly each year in an effort to keep up with the ever-evolving influenza virus.

“We’ve been making flu vaccines for 80 years, and there are clinical trials happening as we speak to find new and better influenza vaccines,” Dr. Poland said.

There has been other evidence the virus that causes COVID-19 can change this way, too. Researchers at Howard Hughes Medical Center, at Rockefeller University in New York, recently used a key piece of the SARS-CoV-2 virus – the genetic instructions for its spike protein – to repeatedly infect human cells. Scientists watched as each new generation of the virus went on to infect a new batch of cells. Over time, as it copied itself, some of the copies changed their genes to allow them to survive after scientists attacked them with neutralizing antibodies. Those antibodies are among the main weapons used by the immune system to recognize and disable a virus.

Though that study is still a preprint, which means it hasn’t yet been reviewed by outside experts, the authors wrote that their findings suggest the virus can change in ways that help it evade our immune system. If true, they wrote in mid-July, it means reinfection is possible, especially in people who have a weak immune response to the virus the first time they encounter it.
 

Good news

That seems to be true in the case of the man from Hong Kong. When doctors tested his blood to look for antibodies to the virus, they didn’t find any. That could mean that he either had a weak immune response to the virus the first time around, or that the antibodies he made during his first infection diminished over time. But during his second infection, he quickly developed more antibodies, suggesting that the second infection acted a little bit like a booster to fire up his immune system. That’s probably the reason he didn’t have any symptoms the second time, too.

That’s good news, Dr. Poland said. It means our bodies can get better at fighting off the COVID-19 virus and that catching it once means the second time might not be so bad.

But the fact that the virus can change quickly this way does have some impact on the effort to come up with a vaccine that works well.

“I think a potential implication of this is that we will have to give booster doses. The question is how frequently,” Dr. Poland said. That will depend on how fast the virus is changing, and how often reinfection is happening in the real world.

“I’m a little surprised at 4½ months,” Dr. Poland said, referencing the time between the Hong Kong man’s infections. “I’m not surprised by, you know, I got infected last winter and I got infected again this winter,” he said.

It also suggests that immune-based therapies such as convalescent plasma and monoclonal antibodies may be of limited help over time, since the virus might be changing in ways that help it outsmart those treatments.

Convalescent plasma is essentially a concentrated dose of antibodies from people who have recovered from a COVID-19 infection. As the virus changes, the antibodies in that plasma may not work as well for future infections.

Drug companies have learned to harness the power of monoclonal antibodies as powerful treatments against cancer and other diseases. Monoclonal antibodies, which are mass-produced in a lab, mimic the body’s natural defenses against a pathogen. Just like the virus can become resistant to natural immunity, it can change in ways that help it outsmart lab-created treatments. Some drug companies that are developing monoclonal antibodies to fight COVID-19 have already prepared for that possibility by making antibody cocktails that are designed to disable the virus by locking onto it in different places, which may help prevent it from developing resistance to those therapies.

“We have a lot to learn,” Dr. Poland said. “Now that the proof of principle has been established, and I would say it has with this man, and with our knowledge of seasonal coronaviruses, we need to look more aggressively to define how often this occurs.”

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

Researchers in Hong Kong say they’ve confirmed that a person can be infected with COVID-19 twice.

There have been sporadic accounts on social media sites of people who say they’ve gotten COVID-19 twice. But scientists have been skeptical about that possibility, saying there’s no evidence it happens.

The new proof comes from a 33-year-old man in Hong Kong who first caught COVID-19 in March. He was tested for the coronavirus after he developed a cough, sore throat, fever, and a headache for 3 days. He stayed in the hospital until he twice tested negative for the virus in mid-April.

On Aug. 15, the man returned to Hong Kong from a recent trip to Spain and the United Kingdom, areas that have recently seen a resurgence of COVID-19 cases. At the airport, he was screened for COVID-19 with a test that checks saliva for the virus. He tested positive, but this time, had no symptoms. He was taken to the hospital for monitoring. His viral load – the amount of virus he had in his body – went down over time, suggesting that his immune system was taking care of the intrusion on its own.

The special thing about his case is that each time he was hospitalized, doctors sequenced the genome of the virus that infected him. It was slightly different from one infection to the next, suggesting that the virus had mutated – or changed – in the 4 months between his infections. It also proves that it’s possible for this coronavirus to infect the same person twice.

Experts with the World Health Organization responded to the case at a news briefing.

“What we are learning about infection is that people do develop an immune response. What is not completely clear yet is how strong that immune response is and for how long that immune response lasts,” said Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist with the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland.

A study on the man’s case is being prepared for publication in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases. Experts say the finding shouldn’t cause alarm, but it does have important implications for the development of herd immunity and efforts to come up with vaccines and treatments.

“This appears to be pretty clear-cut evidence of reinfection because of sequencing and isolation of two different viruses,” said Gregory Poland, MD, an expert on vaccine development and immunology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “The big unknown is how often is this happening,” he said. More studies are needed to learn whether this was a rare case or something that is happening often.
 

Past experience guides present

Until we know more, Dr. Poland said, the possibility of getting COVID-19 twice shouldn’t make anyone worry.

This also happens with other kinds of coronaviruses – the ones that cause common colds. Those coronaviruses change slightly each year as they circle the globe, which allows them to keep spreading and causing their more run-of-the-mill kind of misery.

It also happens with seasonal flu. It is the reason people have to get vaccinated against the flu year after year, and why the flu vaccine has to change slightly each year in an effort to keep up with the ever-evolving influenza virus.

“We’ve been making flu vaccines for 80 years, and there are clinical trials happening as we speak to find new and better influenza vaccines,” Dr. Poland said.

There has been other evidence the virus that causes COVID-19 can change this way, too. Researchers at Howard Hughes Medical Center, at Rockefeller University in New York, recently used a key piece of the SARS-CoV-2 virus – the genetic instructions for its spike protein – to repeatedly infect human cells. Scientists watched as each new generation of the virus went on to infect a new batch of cells. Over time, as it copied itself, some of the copies changed their genes to allow them to survive after scientists attacked them with neutralizing antibodies. Those antibodies are among the main weapons used by the immune system to recognize and disable a virus.

Though that study is still a preprint, which means it hasn’t yet been reviewed by outside experts, the authors wrote that their findings suggest the virus can change in ways that help it evade our immune system. If true, they wrote in mid-July, it means reinfection is possible, especially in people who have a weak immune response to the virus the first time they encounter it.
 

Good news

That seems to be true in the case of the man from Hong Kong. When doctors tested his blood to look for antibodies to the virus, they didn’t find any. That could mean that he either had a weak immune response to the virus the first time around, or that the antibodies he made during his first infection diminished over time. But during his second infection, he quickly developed more antibodies, suggesting that the second infection acted a little bit like a booster to fire up his immune system. That’s probably the reason he didn’t have any symptoms the second time, too.

That’s good news, Dr. Poland said. It means our bodies can get better at fighting off the COVID-19 virus and that catching it once means the second time might not be so bad.

But the fact that the virus can change quickly this way does have some impact on the effort to come up with a vaccine that works well.

“I think a potential implication of this is that we will have to give booster doses. The question is how frequently,” Dr. Poland said. That will depend on how fast the virus is changing, and how often reinfection is happening in the real world.

“I’m a little surprised at 4½ months,” Dr. Poland said, referencing the time between the Hong Kong man’s infections. “I’m not surprised by, you know, I got infected last winter and I got infected again this winter,” he said.

It also suggests that immune-based therapies such as convalescent plasma and monoclonal antibodies may be of limited help over time, since the virus might be changing in ways that help it outsmart those treatments.

Convalescent plasma is essentially a concentrated dose of antibodies from people who have recovered from a COVID-19 infection. As the virus changes, the antibodies in that plasma may not work as well for future infections.

Drug companies have learned to harness the power of monoclonal antibodies as powerful treatments against cancer and other diseases. Monoclonal antibodies, which are mass-produced in a lab, mimic the body’s natural defenses against a pathogen. Just like the virus can become resistant to natural immunity, it can change in ways that help it outsmart lab-created treatments. Some drug companies that are developing monoclonal antibodies to fight COVID-19 have already prepared for that possibility by making antibody cocktails that are designed to disable the virus by locking onto it in different places, which may help prevent it from developing resistance to those therapies.

“We have a lot to learn,” Dr. Poland said. “Now that the proof of principle has been established, and I would say it has with this man, and with our knowledge of seasonal coronaviruses, we need to look more aggressively to define how often this occurs.”

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

Researchers in Hong Kong say they’ve confirmed that a person can be infected with COVID-19 twice.

There have been sporadic accounts on social media sites of people who say they’ve gotten COVID-19 twice. But scientists have been skeptical about that possibility, saying there’s no evidence it happens.

The new proof comes from a 33-year-old man in Hong Kong who first caught COVID-19 in March. He was tested for the coronavirus after he developed a cough, sore throat, fever, and a headache for 3 days. He stayed in the hospital until he twice tested negative for the virus in mid-April.

On Aug. 15, the man returned to Hong Kong from a recent trip to Spain and the United Kingdom, areas that have recently seen a resurgence of COVID-19 cases. At the airport, he was screened for COVID-19 with a test that checks saliva for the virus. He tested positive, but this time, had no symptoms. He was taken to the hospital for monitoring. His viral load – the amount of virus he had in his body – went down over time, suggesting that his immune system was taking care of the intrusion on its own.

The special thing about his case is that each time he was hospitalized, doctors sequenced the genome of the virus that infected him. It was slightly different from one infection to the next, suggesting that the virus had mutated – or changed – in the 4 months between his infections. It also proves that it’s possible for this coronavirus to infect the same person twice.

Experts with the World Health Organization responded to the case at a news briefing.

“What we are learning about infection is that people do develop an immune response. What is not completely clear yet is how strong that immune response is and for how long that immune response lasts,” said Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist with the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland.

A study on the man’s case is being prepared for publication in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases. Experts say the finding shouldn’t cause alarm, but it does have important implications for the development of herd immunity and efforts to come up with vaccines and treatments.

“This appears to be pretty clear-cut evidence of reinfection because of sequencing and isolation of two different viruses,” said Gregory Poland, MD, an expert on vaccine development and immunology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “The big unknown is how often is this happening,” he said. More studies are needed to learn whether this was a rare case or something that is happening often.
 

Past experience guides present

Until we know more, Dr. Poland said, the possibility of getting COVID-19 twice shouldn’t make anyone worry.

This also happens with other kinds of coronaviruses – the ones that cause common colds. Those coronaviruses change slightly each year as they circle the globe, which allows them to keep spreading and causing their more run-of-the-mill kind of misery.

It also happens with seasonal flu. It is the reason people have to get vaccinated against the flu year after year, and why the flu vaccine has to change slightly each year in an effort to keep up with the ever-evolving influenza virus.

“We’ve been making flu vaccines for 80 years, and there are clinical trials happening as we speak to find new and better influenza vaccines,” Dr. Poland said.

There has been other evidence the virus that causes COVID-19 can change this way, too. Researchers at Howard Hughes Medical Center, at Rockefeller University in New York, recently used a key piece of the SARS-CoV-2 virus – the genetic instructions for its spike protein – to repeatedly infect human cells. Scientists watched as each new generation of the virus went on to infect a new batch of cells. Over time, as it copied itself, some of the copies changed their genes to allow them to survive after scientists attacked them with neutralizing antibodies. Those antibodies are among the main weapons used by the immune system to recognize and disable a virus.

Though that study is still a preprint, which means it hasn’t yet been reviewed by outside experts, the authors wrote that their findings suggest the virus can change in ways that help it evade our immune system. If true, they wrote in mid-July, it means reinfection is possible, especially in people who have a weak immune response to the virus the first time they encounter it.
 

Good news

That seems to be true in the case of the man from Hong Kong. When doctors tested his blood to look for antibodies to the virus, they didn’t find any. That could mean that he either had a weak immune response to the virus the first time around, or that the antibodies he made during his first infection diminished over time. But during his second infection, he quickly developed more antibodies, suggesting that the second infection acted a little bit like a booster to fire up his immune system. That’s probably the reason he didn’t have any symptoms the second time, too.

That’s good news, Dr. Poland said. It means our bodies can get better at fighting off the COVID-19 virus and that catching it once means the second time might not be so bad.

But the fact that the virus can change quickly this way does have some impact on the effort to come up with a vaccine that works well.

“I think a potential implication of this is that we will have to give booster doses. The question is how frequently,” Dr. Poland said. That will depend on how fast the virus is changing, and how often reinfection is happening in the real world.

“I’m a little surprised at 4½ months,” Dr. Poland said, referencing the time between the Hong Kong man’s infections. “I’m not surprised by, you know, I got infected last winter and I got infected again this winter,” he said.

It also suggests that immune-based therapies such as convalescent plasma and monoclonal antibodies may be of limited help over time, since the virus might be changing in ways that help it outsmart those treatments.

Convalescent plasma is essentially a concentrated dose of antibodies from people who have recovered from a COVID-19 infection. As the virus changes, the antibodies in that plasma may not work as well for future infections.

Drug companies have learned to harness the power of monoclonal antibodies as powerful treatments against cancer and other diseases. Monoclonal antibodies, which are mass-produced in a lab, mimic the body’s natural defenses against a pathogen. Just like the virus can become resistant to natural immunity, it can change in ways that help it outsmart lab-created treatments. Some drug companies that are developing monoclonal antibodies to fight COVID-19 have already prepared for that possibility by making antibody cocktails that are designed to disable the virus by locking onto it in different places, which may help prevent it from developing resistance to those therapies.

“We have a lot to learn,” Dr. Poland said. “Now that the proof of principle has been established, and I would say it has with this man, and with our knowledge of seasonal coronaviruses, we need to look more aggressively to define how often this occurs.”

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

The persistence of long-term symptoms in some individuals with COVID-19 illness has opened up a new line of research into the mechanisms underlying myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and other chronic postviral illnesses.

Some patients who had COVID-19 continue to have symptoms weeks to months later, even after they no longer test positive for the virus. In two recent reports – one published in JAMA in July and another published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in August – chronic fatigue was listed as the top symptom among individuals still feeling unwell beyond 2 weeks after COVID-19 onset.

Although some of the reported persistent symptoms appear specific to SARS-CoV-2 – such as cough, chest pain, and dyspnea – others overlap with the diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS, which is defined by substantial, profound fatigue for at least 6 months, postexertional malaise, unrefreshing sleep, and one or both of orthostatic intolerance and/or cognitive impairment. Although the etiology of ME/CFS is unclear, the condition commonly arises following a viral illness.

At the virtual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis August 21, the opening session was devoted to research documenting the extent to which COVID-19 survivors subsequently meet ME/CFS criteria, and to exploring underlying mechanisms.

“It offers a lot of opportunities for us to study potentially early ME/CFS and how it develops, but in addition, a lot of the research that has been done on ME/CFS may also provide answers for COVID-19,” IACFS/ME vice president Lily Chu, MD, said in an interview.
 

A hint from the SARS outbreak

This isn’t the first time researchers have seen a possible link between a coronavirus and ME/CFS, Harvey Moldofsky, MD, told attendees. To illustrate that point, Dr. Moldofsky, of the department of psychiatry (emeritus) at the University of Toronto, reviewed data from a previously published case-controlled study, which included 22 health care workers who had been infected in 2003 with SARS-CoV-1 and continued to report chronic fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and disturbed and unrefreshing sleep with EEG-documented sleep disturbances 1-3 years following the illness. None had been able to return to work by 1 year.

“We’re looking at similar symptoms now” among survivors of COVID-19, Dr. Moldofsky said. “[T]he key issue is that we have no idea of its prevalence. … We need epidemiologic studies.”
 

Distinguishing ME/CFS from other post–COVID-19 symptoms

Not everyone who has persistent symptoms after COVID-19 will develop ME/CFS, and distinguishing between cases may be important.

Clinically, Dr. Chu said, one way to assess whether a patient with persistent COVID-19 symptoms might be progressing to ME/CFS is to ask him or her specifically about the level of fatigue following physical exertion and the timing of any fatigue. With ME/CFS, postexertional malaise often involves a dramatic exacerbation of symptoms such as fatigue, pain, and cognitive impairment a day or 2 after exertion rather than immediately following it. In contrast, shortness of breath during exertion isn’t typical of ME/CFS.

Objective measures of ME/CFS include low natural killer cell function (the test can be ordered from commercial labs but requires rapid transport of the blood sample), and autonomic dysfunction assessed by a tilt-table test.

While there is currently no cure for ME/CFS, diagnosing it allows for the patient to be taught “pacing” in which the person conserves his or her energy by balancing activity with rest. “That type of behavioral technique is valuable for everyone who suffers from a chronic disease with fatigue. It can help them be more functional,” Dr. Chu said.

If a patient appears to be exhibiting signs of ME/CFS, “don’t wait until they hit the 6-month mark to start helping them manage their symptoms,” she said. “Teaching pacing to COVID-19 patients who have a lot of fatigue isn’t going to harm them. As they get better they’re going to just naturally do more. But if they do have ME/CFS, [pacing] stresses their system less, since the data seem to be pointing to deficiencies in producing energy.”
 

Will COVID-19 unleash a new wave of ME/CFS patients?

Much of the session at the virtual meeting was devoted to ongoing studies. For example, Leonard Jason, PhD, of the Center for Community Research at DePaul University, Chicago, described a prospective study launched in 2014 that looked at risk factors for developing ME/CFS in college students who contracted infectious mononucleosis as a result of Epstein-Barr virus. Now, his team is also following students from the same cohort who develop COVID-19.

Because the study included collection of baseline biological samples, the results could help reveal predisposing factors associated with long-term illness from either virus.

Another project, funded by the Open Medicine Foundation, will follow patients who are discharged from the ICU following severe COVID-19 illness. Blood, urine, and cerebrospinal fluid will be collected from those with persistent symptoms at 6 months, along with questionnaire data. At 18-24 months, those who continue to report symptoms will undergo more intensive evaluation using genomics, metabolomics, and proteomics.

“We’re taking advantage of this horrible situation, hoping to understand how a serious viral infection might lead to ME/CFS,” said lead investigator Ronald Tompkins, MD, ScD, chief medical officer at the Open Medicine Foundation and a faculty member at Harvard Medical School, Boston. The results, he said, “might give us insight into potential drug targets or biomarkers useful for prevention and treatment strategies.”

Meanwhile, Sadie Whittaker, PhD, head of the Solve ME/CFS initiative, described her organization’s new plan to use their registry to prospectively track the impact of COVID-19 on people with ME/CFS. 

She noted that they’ve also teamed up with “long-COVID” communities including Body Politic. “Our goal is to form a coalition to study together or at least harmonize data … and understand what’s going on through the power of bigger sample sizes,” Dr. Whittaker said.

None of the speakers disclosed relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The persistence of long-term symptoms in some individuals with COVID-19 illness has opened up a new line of research into the mechanisms underlying myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and other chronic postviral illnesses.

Some patients who had COVID-19 continue to have symptoms weeks to months later, even after they no longer test positive for the virus. In two recent reports – one published in JAMA in July and another published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in August – chronic fatigue was listed as the top symptom among individuals still feeling unwell beyond 2 weeks after COVID-19 onset.

Although some of the reported persistent symptoms appear specific to SARS-CoV-2 – such as cough, chest pain, and dyspnea – others overlap with the diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS, which is defined by substantial, profound fatigue for at least 6 months, postexertional malaise, unrefreshing sleep, and one or both of orthostatic intolerance and/or cognitive impairment. Although the etiology of ME/CFS is unclear, the condition commonly arises following a viral illness.

At the virtual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis August 21, the opening session was devoted to research documenting the extent to which COVID-19 survivors subsequently meet ME/CFS criteria, and to exploring underlying mechanisms.

“It offers a lot of opportunities for us to study potentially early ME/CFS and how it develops, but in addition, a lot of the research that has been done on ME/CFS may also provide answers for COVID-19,” IACFS/ME vice president Lily Chu, MD, said in an interview.
 

A hint from the SARS outbreak

This isn’t the first time researchers have seen a possible link between a coronavirus and ME/CFS, Harvey Moldofsky, MD, told attendees. To illustrate that point, Dr. Moldofsky, of the department of psychiatry (emeritus) at the University of Toronto, reviewed data from a previously published case-controlled study, which included 22 health care workers who had been infected in 2003 with SARS-CoV-1 and continued to report chronic fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and disturbed and unrefreshing sleep with EEG-documented sleep disturbances 1-3 years following the illness. None had been able to return to work by 1 year.

“We’re looking at similar symptoms now” among survivors of COVID-19, Dr. Moldofsky said. “[T]he key issue is that we have no idea of its prevalence. … We need epidemiologic studies.”
 

Distinguishing ME/CFS from other post–COVID-19 symptoms

Not everyone who has persistent symptoms after COVID-19 will develop ME/CFS, and distinguishing between cases may be important.

Clinically, Dr. Chu said, one way to assess whether a patient with persistent COVID-19 symptoms might be progressing to ME/CFS is to ask him or her specifically about the level of fatigue following physical exertion and the timing of any fatigue. With ME/CFS, postexertional malaise often involves a dramatic exacerbation of symptoms such as fatigue, pain, and cognitive impairment a day or 2 after exertion rather than immediately following it. In contrast, shortness of breath during exertion isn’t typical of ME/CFS.

Objective measures of ME/CFS include low natural killer cell function (the test can be ordered from commercial labs but requires rapid transport of the blood sample), and autonomic dysfunction assessed by a tilt-table test.

While there is currently no cure for ME/CFS, diagnosing it allows for the patient to be taught “pacing” in which the person conserves his or her energy by balancing activity with rest. “That type of behavioral technique is valuable for everyone who suffers from a chronic disease with fatigue. It can help them be more functional,” Dr. Chu said.

If a patient appears to be exhibiting signs of ME/CFS, “don’t wait until they hit the 6-month mark to start helping them manage their symptoms,” she said. “Teaching pacing to COVID-19 patients who have a lot of fatigue isn’t going to harm them. As they get better they’re going to just naturally do more. But if they do have ME/CFS, [pacing] stresses their system less, since the data seem to be pointing to deficiencies in producing energy.”
 

Will COVID-19 unleash a new wave of ME/CFS patients?

Much of the session at the virtual meeting was devoted to ongoing studies. For example, Leonard Jason, PhD, of the Center for Community Research at DePaul University, Chicago, described a prospective study launched in 2014 that looked at risk factors for developing ME/CFS in college students who contracted infectious mononucleosis as a result of Epstein-Barr virus. Now, his team is also following students from the same cohort who develop COVID-19.

Because the study included collection of baseline biological samples, the results could help reveal predisposing factors associated with long-term illness from either virus.

Another project, funded by the Open Medicine Foundation, will follow patients who are discharged from the ICU following severe COVID-19 illness. Blood, urine, and cerebrospinal fluid will be collected from those with persistent symptoms at 6 months, along with questionnaire data. At 18-24 months, those who continue to report symptoms will undergo more intensive evaluation using genomics, metabolomics, and proteomics.

“We’re taking advantage of this horrible situation, hoping to understand how a serious viral infection might lead to ME/CFS,” said lead investigator Ronald Tompkins, MD, ScD, chief medical officer at the Open Medicine Foundation and a faculty member at Harvard Medical School, Boston. The results, he said, “might give us insight into potential drug targets or biomarkers useful for prevention and treatment strategies.”

Meanwhile, Sadie Whittaker, PhD, head of the Solve ME/CFS initiative, described her organization’s new plan to use their registry to prospectively track the impact of COVID-19 on people with ME/CFS. 

She noted that they’ve also teamed up with “long-COVID” communities including Body Politic. “Our goal is to form a coalition to study together or at least harmonize data … and understand what’s going on through the power of bigger sample sizes,” Dr. Whittaker said.

None of the speakers disclosed relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The persistence of long-term symptoms in some individuals with COVID-19 illness has opened up a new line of research into the mechanisms underlying myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and other chronic postviral illnesses.

Some patients who had COVID-19 continue to have symptoms weeks to months later, even after they no longer test positive for the virus. In two recent reports – one published in JAMA in July and another published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in August – chronic fatigue was listed as the top symptom among individuals still feeling unwell beyond 2 weeks after COVID-19 onset.

Although some of the reported persistent symptoms appear specific to SARS-CoV-2 – such as cough, chest pain, and dyspnea – others overlap with the diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS, which is defined by substantial, profound fatigue for at least 6 months, postexertional malaise, unrefreshing sleep, and one or both of orthostatic intolerance and/or cognitive impairment. Although the etiology of ME/CFS is unclear, the condition commonly arises following a viral illness.

At the virtual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis August 21, the opening session was devoted to research documenting the extent to which COVID-19 survivors subsequently meet ME/CFS criteria, and to exploring underlying mechanisms.

“It offers a lot of opportunities for us to study potentially early ME/CFS and how it develops, but in addition, a lot of the research that has been done on ME/CFS may also provide answers for COVID-19,” IACFS/ME vice president Lily Chu, MD, said in an interview.
 

A hint from the SARS outbreak

This isn’t the first time researchers have seen a possible link between a coronavirus and ME/CFS, Harvey Moldofsky, MD, told attendees. To illustrate that point, Dr. Moldofsky, of the department of psychiatry (emeritus) at the University of Toronto, reviewed data from a previously published case-controlled study, which included 22 health care workers who had been infected in 2003 with SARS-CoV-1 and continued to report chronic fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and disturbed and unrefreshing sleep with EEG-documented sleep disturbances 1-3 years following the illness. None had been able to return to work by 1 year.

“We’re looking at similar symptoms now” among survivors of COVID-19, Dr. Moldofsky said. “[T]he key issue is that we have no idea of its prevalence. … We need epidemiologic studies.”
 

Distinguishing ME/CFS from other post–COVID-19 symptoms

Not everyone who has persistent symptoms after COVID-19 will develop ME/CFS, and distinguishing between cases may be important.

Clinically, Dr. Chu said, one way to assess whether a patient with persistent COVID-19 symptoms might be progressing to ME/CFS is to ask him or her specifically about the level of fatigue following physical exertion and the timing of any fatigue. With ME/CFS, postexertional malaise often involves a dramatic exacerbation of symptoms such as fatigue, pain, and cognitive impairment a day or 2 after exertion rather than immediately following it. In contrast, shortness of breath during exertion isn’t typical of ME/CFS.

Objective measures of ME/CFS include low natural killer cell function (the test can be ordered from commercial labs but requires rapid transport of the blood sample), and autonomic dysfunction assessed by a tilt-table test.

While there is currently no cure for ME/CFS, diagnosing it allows for the patient to be taught “pacing” in which the person conserves his or her energy by balancing activity with rest. “That type of behavioral technique is valuable for everyone who suffers from a chronic disease with fatigue. It can help them be more functional,” Dr. Chu said.

If a patient appears to be exhibiting signs of ME/CFS, “don’t wait until they hit the 6-month mark to start helping them manage their symptoms,” she said. “Teaching pacing to COVID-19 patients who have a lot of fatigue isn’t going to harm them. As they get better they’re going to just naturally do more. But if they do have ME/CFS, [pacing] stresses their system less, since the data seem to be pointing to deficiencies in producing energy.”
 

Will COVID-19 unleash a new wave of ME/CFS patients?

Much of the session at the virtual meeting was devoted to ongoing studies. For example, Leonard Jason, PhD, of the Center for Community Research at DePaul University, Chicago, described a prospective study launched in 2014 that looked at risk factors for developing ME/CFS in college students who contracted infectious mononucleosis as a result of Epstein-Barr virus. Now, his team is also following students from the same cohort who develop COVID-19.

Because the study included collection of baseline biological samples, the results could help reveal predisposing factors associated with long-term illness from either virus.

Another project, funded by the Open Medicine Foundation, will follow patients who are discharged from the ICU following severe COVID-19 illness. Blood, urine, and cerebrospinal fluid will be collected from those with persistent symptoms at 6 months, along with questionnaire data. At 18-24 months, those who continue to report symptoms will undergo more intensive evaluation using genomics, metabolomics, and proteomics.

“We’re taking advantage of this horrible situation, hoping to understand how a serious viral infection might lead to ME/CFS,” said lead investigator Ronald Tompkins, MD, ScD, chief medical officer at the Open Medicine Foundation and a faculty member at Harvard Medical School, Boston. The results, he said, “might give us insight into potential drug targets or biomarkers useful for prevention and treatment strategies.”

Meanwhile, Sadie Whittaker, PhD, head of the Solve ME/CFS initiative, described her organization’s new plan to use their registry to prospectively track the impact of COVID-19 on people with ME/CFS. 

She noted that they’ve also teamed up with “long-COVID” communities including Body Politic. “Our goal is to form a coalition to study together or at least harmonize data … and understand what’s going on through the power of bigger sample sizes,” Dr. Whittaker said.

None of the speakers disclosed relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in patients with autoimmune diseases may increase risk for inflammatory central nervous system (CNS) outcomes, new research suggests

The nested case-control study included more than 200 participants with diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and Crohn’s disease. Results showed that exposure to TNF inhibitors was significantly associated with increased risk for demyelinating CNS events, such as multiple sclerosis, and nondemyelinating events, such as meningitis and encephalitis.

Interestingly, disease-specific secondary analyses showed that the strongest association for inflammatory events was in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Lead author Amy Kunchok, MD, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., noted that “these are highly effective therapies for patients” and that these CNS events are likely uncommon.

“Our study has observed an association, but this does not imply causality. Therefore, we are not cautioning against using these therapies in appropriate patients,” Dr. Kunchok said in an interview.

“Rather, we recommend that clinicians assessing patients with both inflammatory demyelinating and nondemyelinating CNS events consider a detailed evaluation of the medication history, particularly in patients with coexistent autoimmune diseases who may have a current or past history of biological therapies,” she said.

The findings were published in JAMA Neurology.
 

Poorly understood

TNF inhibitors “are common therapies for certain autoimmune diseases,” the investigators noted.

Previously, a link between exposure to these inhibitors and inflammatory CNS events “has been postulated but is poorly understood,” they wrote.

In the current study, they examined records for 106 patients who were treated at Mayo clinics in Minnesota, Arizona, or Florida from January 2003 through February 2019. All participants had been diagnosed with an autoimmune disease that the Food and Drug Administration has listed as an indication for TNF inhibitor use. This included rheumatoid arthritis (n = 48), ankylosing spondylitis (n = 4), psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (n = 21), Crohn’s disease (n = 27), and ulcerative colitis (n = 6). Their records also showed diagnostic codes for the inflammatory demyelinating CNS events of relapsing-remitting or primary progressive MS, clinically isolated syndrome, radiologically isolated syndrome, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder, and transverse myelitis or for the inflammatory nondemyelinating CNS events of meningitis, meningoencephalitis, encephalitis, neurosarcoidosis, and CNS vasculitis.  The investigators also included 106 age-, sex-, and autoimmune disease–matched participants 1:1 to act as the control group.

In the total study population, 64% were women and the median age at disease onset was 52 years. In addition, 60% of the patient group and 40% of the control group were exposed to TNF inhibitors.
 

Novel finding?

Results showed that TNF inhibitor exposure was significantly linked to increased risk for developing any inflammatory CNS event (adjusted odds ratio, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.55-5.82; P = .001). When the outcomes were stratified by class of inflammatory event, these results were similar. The aOR was 3.09 (95% CI, 1.19-8.04; P = .02) for inflammatory demyelinating CNS events and was 2.97 (95% CI, 1.15-7.65; P = .02) for inflammatory nondemyelinating events.

Dr. Kunchok noted that the association between the inhibitors and nondemyelinating events was “a novel finding from this study.”

In secondary analyses, patients with rheumatoid arthritis and exposure to TNF inhibitors had the strongest association with any inflammatory CNS event (aOR, 4.82; 95% CI, 1.62-14.36; P = .005).

A pooled cohort comprising only the participants with the other autoimmune diseases did not show a significant association between exposure to TNF inhibitors and development of CNS events (P = .09).

“Because of the lack of power, further stratification by individual autoimmune diseases was not analyzed,” the investigators reported.

Although the overall findings showed that exposure to TNF inhibitors was linked to increased risk for inflammatory events, whether this association “represents de novo or exacerbated inflammatory pathways requires further research,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Kunchok added that more research, especially population-based studies, is also needed to examine the incidence of these inflammatory CNS events in patients exposed to TNF-alpha inhibitors.
 

Adds to the literature

In an accompanying editorial, Jeffrey M. Gelfand, MD, department of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, and Jinoos Yazdany, MD, Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital at UCSF, noted that although the study adds to the literature, the magnitude of the risk found “remains unclear.”

“Randomized clinical trials are not suited to the study of rare adverse events,” Dr. Gelfand and Dr. Yazdany wrote. They agree with Dr. Kunchok that “next steps should include population-based observational studies that control for disease severity.”

Still, the current study provides additional evidence of rare adverse events in patients receiving TNF inhibitors, they noted. So how should prescribers proceed?

“As with all treatments, the risk-benefit ratio for the individual patient’s situation must be weighed and appropriate counseling must be given to facilitate shared decision-making discussions,” wrote the editorialists.

“Given what is known about the risk of harm, avoiding TNF inhibitors is advisable in patients with known MS,” they wrote.

In addition, neurologic consultation can be helpful for clarifying diagnoses and providing advice on monitoring strategies for TNF inhibitor treatment in those with possible MS or other demyelinating conditions, noted the editorialists.

“In patients who develop new concerning neurological symptoms while receiving TNF inhibitor treatment, timely evaluation is indicated, including consideration of neuroinflammatory, infectious, and neurological diagnoses that may be unrelated to treatment,” they added.

“Broader awareness of risks that studies such as this one by Kunchok et al provide can ... encourage timelier recognition of potential TNF inhibitor–associated neuroinflammatory events and may improve outcomes for patients,” Dr. Gelfand and Dr. Yazdany concluded.

The study was funded by a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Kunchok reports having received research funding from Biogen outside this study. A full list of disclosures for the other study authors is in the original article. Dr. Gelfand reports having received g rants for a clinical trial from Genentech and consulting fees from Biogen, Alexion, Theranica, Impel Neuropharma, Advanced Clinical, Biohaven, and Satsuma. Dr. Yazdany reports having received grants from Pfizer and consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly outside the submitted work.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in patients with autoimmune diseases may increase risk for inflammatory central nervous system (CNS) outcomes, new research suggests

The nested case-control study included more than 200 participants with diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and Crohn’s disease. Results showed that exposure to TNF inhibitors was significantly associated with increased risk for demyelinating CNS events, such as multiple sclerosis, and nondemyelinating events, such as meningitis and encephalitis.

Interestingly, disease-specific secondary analyses showed that the strongest association for inflammatory events was in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Lead author Amy Kunchok, MD, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., noted that “these are highly effective therapies for patients” and that these CNS events are likely uncommon.

“Our study has observed an association, but this does not imply causality. Therefore, we are not cautioning against using these therapies in appropriate patients,” Dr. Kunchok said in an interview.

“Rather, we recommend that clinicians assessing patients with both inflammatory demyelinating and nondemyelinating CNS events consider a detailed evaluation of the medication history, particularly in patients with coexistent autoimmune diseases who may have a current or past history of biological therapies,” she said.

The findings were published in JAMA Neurology.
 

Poorly understood

TNF inhibitors “are common therapies for certain autoimmune diseases,” the investigators noted.

Previously, a link between exposure to these inhibitors and inflammatory CNS events “has been postulated but is poorly understood,” they wrote.

In the current study, they examined records for 106 patients who were treated at Mayo clinics in Minnesota, Arizona, or Florida from January 2003 through February 2019. All participants had been diagnosed with an autoimmune disease that the Food and Drug Administration has listed as an indication for TNF inhibitor use. This included rheumatoid arthritis (n = 48), ankylosing spondylitis (n = 4), psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (n = 21), Crohn’s disease (n = 27), and ulcerative colitis (n = 6). Their records also showed diagnostic codes for the inflammatory demyelinating CNS events of relapsing-remitting or primary progressive MS, clinically isolated syndrome, radiologically isolated syndrome, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder, and transverse myelitis or for the inflammatory nondemyelinating CNS events of meningitis, meningoencephalitis, encephalitis, neurosarcoidosis, and CNS vasculitis.  The investigators also included 106 age-, sex-, and autoimmune disease–matched participants 1:1 to act as the control group.

In the total study population, 64% were women and the median age at disease onset was 52 years. In addition, 60% of the patient group and 40% of the control group were exposed to TNF inhibitors.
 

Novel finding?

Results showed that TNF inhibitor exposure was significantly linked to increased risk for developing any inflammatory CNS event (adjusted odds ratio, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.55-5.82; P = .001). When the outcomes were stratified by class of inflammatory event, these results were similar. The aOR was 3.09 (95% CI, 1.19-8.04; P = .02) for inflammatory demyelinating CNS events and was 2.97 (95% CI, 1.15-7.65; P = .02) for inflammatory nondemyelinating events.

Dr. Kunchok noted that the association between the inhibitors and nondemyelinating events was “a novel finding from this study.”

In secondary analyses, patients with rheumatoid arthritis and exposure to TNF inhibitors had the strongest association with any inflammatory CNS event (aOR, 4.82; 95% CI, 1.62-14.36; P = .005).

A pooled cohort comprising only the participants with the other autoimmune diseases did not show a significant association between exposure to TNF inhibitors and development of CNS events (P = .09).

“Because of the lack of power, further stratification by individual autoimmune diseases was not analyzed,” the investigators reported.

Although the overall findings showed that exposure to TNF inhibitors was linked to increased risk for inflammatory events, whether this association “represents de novo or exacerbated inflammatory pathways requires further research,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Kunchok added that more research, especially population-based studies, is also needed to examine the incidence of these inflammatory CNS events in patients exposed to TNF-alpha inhibitors.
 

Adds to the literature

In an accompanying editorial, Jeffrey M. Gelfand, MD, department of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, and Jinoos Yazdany, MD, Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital at UCSF, noted that although the study adds to the literature, the magnitude of the risk found “remains unclear.”

“Randomized clinical trials are not suited to the study of rare adverse events,” Dr. Gelfand and Dr. Yazdany wrote. They agree with Dr. Kunchok that “next steps should include population-based observational studies that control for disease severity.”

Still, the current study provides additional evidence of rare adverse events in patients receiving TNF inhibitors, they noted. So how should prescribers proceed?

“As with all treatments, the risk-benefit ratio for the individual patient’s situation must be weighed and appropriate counseling must be given to facilitate shared decision-making discussions,” wrote the editorialists.

“Given what is known about the risk of harm, avoiding TNF inhibitors is advisable in patients with known MS,” they wrote.

In addition, neurologic consultation can be helpful for clarifying diagnoses and providing advice on monitoring strategies for TNF inhibitor treatment in those with possible MS or other demyelinating conditions, noted the editorialists.

“In patients who develop new concerning neurological symptoms while receiving TNF inhibitor treatment, timely evaluation is indicated, including consideration of neuroinflammatory, infectious, and neurological diagnoses that may be unrelated to treatment,” they added.

“Broader awareness of risks that studies such as this one by Kunchok et al provide can ... encourage timelier recognition of potential TNF inhibitor–associated neuroinflammatory events and may improve outcomes for patients,” Dr. Gelfand and Dr. Yazdany concluded.

The study was funded by a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Kunchok reports having received research funding from Biogen outside this study. A full list of disclosures for the other study authors is in the original article. Dr. Gelfand reports having received g rants for a clinical trial from Genentech and consulting fees from Biogen, Alexion, Theranica, Impel Neuropharma, Advanced Clinical, Biohaven, and Satsuma. Dr. Yazdany reports having received grants from Pfizer and consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly outside the submitted work.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in patients with autoimmune diseases may increase risk for inflammatory central nervous system (CNS) outcomes, new research suggests

The nested case-control study included more than 200 participants with diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and Crohn’s disease. Results showed that exposure to TNF inhibitors was significantly associated with increased risk for demyelinating CNS events, such as multiple sclerosis, and nondemyelinating events, such as meningitis and encephalitis.

Interestingly, disease-specific secondary analyses showed that the strongest association for inflammatory events was in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Lead author Amy Kunchok, MD, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., noted that “these are highly effective therapies for patients” and that these CNS events are likely uncommon.

“Our study has observed an association, but this does not imply causality. Therefore, we are not cautioning against using these therapies in appropriate patients,” Dr. Kunchok said in an interview.

“Rather, we recommend that clinicians assessing patients with both inflammatory demyelinating and nondemyelinating CNS events consider a detailed evaluation of the medication history, particularly in patients with coexistent autoimmune diseases who may have a current or past history of biological therapies,” she said.

The findings were published in JAMA Neurology.
 

Poorly understood

TNF inhibitors “are common therapies for certain autoimmune diseases,” the investigators noted.

Previously, a link between exposure to these inhibitors and inflammatory CNS events “has been postulated but is poorly understood,” they wrote.

In the current study, they examined records for 106 patients who were treated at Mayo clinics in Minnesota, Arizona, or Florida from January 2003 through February 2019. All participants had been diagnosed with an autoimmune disease that the Food and Drug Administration has listed as an indication for TNF inhibitor use. This included rheumatoid arthritis (n = 48), ankylosing spondylitis (n = 4), psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (n = 21), Crohn’s disease (n = 27), and ulcerative colitis (n = 6). Their records also showed diagnostic codes for the inflammatory demyelinating CNS events of relapsing-remitting or primary progressive MS, clinically isolated syndrome, radiologically isolated syndrome, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder, and transverse myelitis or for the inflammatory nondemyelinating CNS events of meningitis, meningoencephalitis, encephalitis, neurosarcoidosis, and CNS vasculitis.  The investigators also included 106 age-, sex-, and autoimmune disease–matched participants 1:1 to act as the control group.

In the total study population, 64% were women and the median age at disease onset was 52 years. In addition, 60% of the patient group and 40% of the control group were exposed to TNF inhibitors.
 

Novel finding?

Results showed that TNF inhibitor exposure was significantly linked to increased risk for developing any inflammatory CNS event (adjusted odds ratio, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.55-5.82; P = .001). When the outcomes were stratified by class of inflammatory event, these results were similar. The aOR was 3.09 (95% CI, 1.19-8.04; P = .02) for inflammatory demyelinating CNS events and was 2.97 (95% CI, 1.15-7.65; P = .02) for inflammatory nondemyelinating events.

Dr. Kunchok noted that the association between the inhibitors and nondemyelinating events was “a novel finding from this study.”

In secondary analyses, patients with rheumatoid arthritis and exposure to TNF inhibitors had the strongest association with any inflammatory CNS event (aOR, 4.82; 95% CI, 1.62-14.36; P = .005).

A pooled cohort comprising only the participants with the other autoimmune diseases did not show a significant association between exposure to TNF inhibitors and development of CNS events (P = .09).

“Because of the lack of power, further stratification by individual autoimmune diseases was not analyzed,” the investigators reported.

Although the overall findings showed that exposure to TNF inhibitors was linked to increased risk for inflammatory events, whether this association “represents de novo or exacerbated inflammatory pathways requires further research,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Kunchok added that more research, especially population-based studies, is also needed to examine the incidence of these inflammatory CNS events in patients exposed to TNF-alpha inhibitors.
 

Adds to the literature

In an accompanying editorial, Jeffrey M. Gelfand, MD, department of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, and Jinoos Yazdany, MD, Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital at UCSF, noted that although the study adds to the literature, the magnitude of the risk found “remains unclear.”

“Randomized clinical trials are not suited to the study of rare adverse events,” Dr. Gelfand and Dr. Yazdany wrote. They agree with Dr. Kunchok that “next steps should include population-based observational studies that control for disease severity.”

Still, the current study provides additional evidence of rare adverse events in patients receiving TNF inhibitors, they noted. So how should prescribers proceed?

“As with all treatments, the risk-benefit ratio for the individual patient’s situation must be weighed and appropriate counseling must be given to facilitate shared decision-making discussions,” wrote the editorialists.

“Given what is known about the risk of harm, avoiding TNF inhibitors is advisable in patients with known MS,” they wrote.

In addition, neurologic consultation can be helpful for clarifying diagnoses and providing advice on monitoring strategies for TNF inhibitor treatment in those with possible MS or other demyelinating conditions, noted the editorialists.

“In patients who develop new concerning neurological symptoms while receiving TNF inhibitor treatment, timely evaluation is indicated, including consideration of neuroinflammatory, infectious, and neurological diagnoses that may be unrelated to treatment,” they added.

“Broader awareness of risks that studies such as this one by Kunchok et al provide can ... encourage timelier recognition of potential TNF inhibitor–associated neuroinflammatory events and may improve outcomes for patients,” Dr. Gelfand and Dr. Yazdany concluded.

The study was funded by a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Kunchok reports having received research funding from Biogen outside this study. A full list of disclosures for the other study authors is in the original article. Dr. Gelfand reports having received g rants for a clinical trial from Genentech and consulting fees from Biogen, Alexion, Theranica, Impel Neuropharma, Advanced Clinical, Biohaven, and Satsuma. Dr. Yazdany reports having received grants from Pfizer and consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly outside the submitted work.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted marketing approval for the BrainsWay deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) system to help adult smokers kick tobacco.

This is the company’s third FDA-approved indication for its deep TMS system and the first FDA approval for any TMS device for addiction, the company said in a press release.

As previously reported, the system has already been approved by the FDA as a treatment for patients suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder and major depressive disorder.

The BrainsWay deep TMS system with H4-coil is designed to target addiction-related brain circuits.

It was evaluated as an aid to short-term smoking cessation in a prospective, double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled, multicenter study that involved 262 adults who had a history of smoking an average of more than 26 years and had attempted to quit multiple times but failed.

Active and sham treatments were performed daily 5 days a week for 3 weeks, followed by an additional three sessions once weekly for 3 weeks, for a total of 18 sessions over 6 weeks.

In the full intention-to-treat population (all 262 participants), the 4-week continuous quit rate (CQR, the primary endpoint) was higher in the active deep TMS group than in the sham TMS group (17.1% vs. 7.9%; P = .0238).

Among participants who completed the study, that is, those who underwent treatment for 4 weeks, who kept daily records, and for whom confirmatory urine samples were available, the CQR was 28.4% in the active deep TMS group, compared with 11.7% in the sham treatment group (P = .0063).

The average number of cigarettes smoked per day, as determined on the basis of daily records (secondary endpoint), was statistically significantly lower in the active deep TMS group, compared with the sham treatment group (P = .0311).

No patient suffered a seizure. The most common adverse event was headache, for which there was no statistical difference between the active and sham treatment groups. Other side effects included application site discomfort, back pain, muscle twitching, and discomfort.

“This FDA clearance represents a significant milestone for BrainsWay and our deep TMS platform technology,” Christopher von Jako, PhD, president and CEO of the company, said in the release.

“While other therapies are currently available, a substantial medical need continues to exist for treatments that can increase the continuous quit rate among smokers,” Dr. von Jako noted.

“Based on the compelling data from our large, randomized pivotal study of 262 subjects, we are confident that our deep TMS technology can play an important role in treating cigarette smokers who seek to quit,” he added.

The company plans a “controlled” U.S. market release of the system for this indication early next year.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted marketing approval for the BrainsWay deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) system to help adult smokers kick tobacco.

This is the company’s third FDA-approved indication for its deep TMS system and the first FDA approval for any TMS device for addiction, the company said in a press release.

As previously reported, the system has already been approved by the FDA as a treatment for patients suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder and major depressive disorder.

The BrainsWay deep TMS system with H4-coil is designed to target addiction-related brain circuits.

It was evaluated as an aid to short-term smoking cessation in a prospective, double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled, multicenter study that involved 262 adults who had a history of smoking an average of more than 26 years and had attempted to quit multiple times but failed.

Active and sham treatments were performed daily 5 days a week for 3 weeks, followed by an additional three sessions once weekly for 3 weeks, for a total of 18 sessions over 6 weeks.

In the full intention-to-treat population (all 262 participants), the 4-week continuous quit rate (CQR, the primary endpoint) was higher in the active deep TMS group than in the sham TMS group (17.1% vs. 7.9%; P = .0238).

Among participants who completed the study, that is, those who underwent treatment for 4 weeks, who kept daily records, and for whom confirmatory urine samples were available, the CQR was 28.4% in the active deep TMS group, compared with 11.7% in the sham treatment group (P = .0063).

The average number of cigarettes smoked per day, as determined on the basis of daily records (secondary endpoint), was statistically significantly lower in the active deep TMS group, compared with the sham treatment group (P = .0311).

No patient suffered a seizure. The most common adverse event was headache, for which there was no statistical difference between the active and sham treatment groups. Other side effects included application site discomfort, back pain, muscle twitching, and discomfort.

“This FDA clearance represents a significant milestone for BrainsWay and our deep TMS platform technology,” Christopher von Jako, PhD, president and CEO of the company, said in the release.

“While other therapies are currently available, a substantial medical need continues to exist for treatments that can increase the continuous quit rate among smokers,” Dr. von Jako noted.

“Based on the compelling data from our large, randomized pivotal study of 262 subjects, we are confident that our deep TMS technology can play an important role in treating cigarette smokers who seek to quit,” he added.

The company plans a “controlled” U.S. market release of the system for this indication early next year.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted marketing approval for the BrainsWay deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) system to help adult smokers kick tobacco.

This is the company’s third FDA-approved indication for its deep TMS system and the first FDA approval for any TMS device for addiction, the company said in a press release.

As previously reported, the system has already been approved by the FDA as a treatment for patients suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder and major depressive disorder.

The BrainsWay deep TMS system with H4-coil is designed to target addiction-related brain circuits.

It was evaluated as an aid to short-term smoking cessation in a prospective, double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled, multicenter study that involved 262 adults who had a history of smoking an average of more than 26 years and had attempted to quit multiple times but failed.

Active and sham treatments were performed daily 5 days a week for 3 weeks, followed by an additional three sessions once weekly for 3 weeks, for a total of 18 sessions over 6 weeks.

In the full intention-to-treat population (all 262 participants), the 4-week continuous quit rate (CQR, the primary endpoint) was higher in the active deep TMS group than in the sham TMS group (17.1% vs. 7.9%; P = .0238).

Among participants who completed the study, that is, those who underwent treatment for 4 weeks, who kept daily records, and for whom confirmatory urine samples were available, the CQR was 28.4% in the active deep TMS group, compared with 11.7% in the sham treatment group (P = .0063).

The average number of cigarettes smoked per day, as determined on the basis of daily records (secondary endpoint), was statistically significantly lower in the active deep TMS group, compared with the sham treatment group (P = .0311).

No patient suffered a seizure. The most common adverse event was headache, for which there was no statistical difference between the active and sham treatment groups. Other side effects included application site discomfort, back pain, muscle twitching, and discomfort.

“This FDA clearance represents a significant milestone for BrainsWay and our deep TMS platform technology,” Christopher von Jako, PhD, president and CEO of the company, said in the release.

“While other therapies are currently available, a substantial medical need continues to exist for treatments that can increase the continuous quit rate among smokers,” Dr. von Jako noted.

“Based on the compelling data from our large, randomized pivotal study of 262 subjects, we are confident that our deep TMS technology can play an important role in treating cigarette smokers who seek to quit,” he added.

The company plans a “controlled” U.S. market release of the system for this indication early next year.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

As COVID-19 continues to threaten the United States and the world, individuals in every profession have been challenged to examine their financial situation. At Fidelity Investments, we recently conducted a national survey asking people how current events have affected their opinions and behaviors when it comes to their money. The results showed that six in 10 Americans are concerned about household finances over the next 6 months. Unfortunately, we’ve seen that even health care professionals have not been financially spared, with salaries or benefits cut or, worse, furloughs and layoffs as hospital systems struggle. I work with many physicians, including gastroenterologists, in my role as a wealth planner for Fidelity Investments and have received quite a few questions related to shoring up family finances during these difficult times.

Luckily, the financial best practices that I share in “good” times ring true even in today’s world, with a few additions given the health and economic risks created by COVID-19.

1. Review your budget. It’s one thing to know that your budget is generally balanced (the dollars you spend are less than the dollars you earn). But it’s worth taking a closer look to see just where those dollars are going. In times of uncertainty, cutting back on expenses that aren’t necessary or don’t provide meaningful value to your life can be worthwhile. If you or your family have lost income because of the pandemic, you might consider these seven simple tips to help boost your cash flow.

2. Tackle (or find relief from) student loan debt. Doctors today graduate medical school with a median debt of just under $195,000.¹ Repaying these loans is daunting, particularly during the COVID-19 crisis. The recent passing of the CARES Act recognizes these difficult times: in fact, it automatically suspended required minimum loan payments and interest accrual on federal student loans until Sept. 30, 2020. This only applies to federal student loans, not private student loans. Beyond this period, if you are still struggling with payments, you may explore the possibility of refinancing, by taking out a lower-interest private loan and using that to pay off student loans (although this may extend the life of your loan). Borrowers could also consider other programs, such as REPAYE (Revised Pay As You Earn) through which your monthly payment tops out at 10% of your monthly income, or Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) if you work for a not-for-profit hospital or other qualifying employer. This program forgives the remaining balance on your direct loans after you have made 120 qualifying monthly payments while working full-time for a qualifying employer.

Additionally, borrowers could look for opportunities to reduce accrued interest, either by refinancing to a lower rate or making payments every 2 weeks rather than once each month.

3. Evaluate your emergency fund. It’s a good idea to keep 3-6 months’ of essential expenses in cash or cash-like investments. If you don’t yet have this 3- to 6-month cushion saved, now is a good time to work to reduce your expenses and stash away any extra cash.

4. Save early and often for retirement. You can borrow money to support many of life’s needs, from housing, to cars, to college. But you can’t borrow for retirement. That is why I encourage clients to put retirement savings at the top of the list, after accounting for day-to-day needs of their families. People often ask me whether it makes sense to continue saving for retirement, often a far-off goal for younger doctors, especially in these uncertain times. My answer? Yes. If you are able to save, continue to save: the earlier you begin to make contributions to your retirement account, and the longer you continue to do so, the more your retirement account(s) have the potential to grow over time.

Another question I receive is whether to take distributions from a retirement account early if you find yourself in a precarious financial situation because of the COVID-19 crisis. The CARES Act provides options allowing Americans to take a withdrawal or loan from a participating retirement plan if you, your spouse, or your dependent have a COVID-19 related illness or you’re experiencing a loss of income related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Try to look at alternative sources of income before tapping your hard-earned retirement savings. If you can find a way to continue saving and avoid drawing down your retirement accounts, your future self will thank you.

Recent market volatility can bring nerves that make it difficult to stay invested. However, as long as your risk tolerance and time horizon reflect your asset allocation – the mix of stock, bonds, and cash (which a financial planner can help with) – you can take comfort in knowing that historically every severe downturn has eventually given way to further growth.

During uncertain times like these, I think the best guidance is to focus on what you can control. The considerations above are a great place to start building a financial plan to solidify you and your family’s future. A Fidelity survey found that 44% of Americans are now working to build up their emergency savings, and one-third (34%) are rethinking how they manage their money because of the COVID-19 crisis.³ Despite the stresses we all face, there is no time like the present to start or revisit your financial plan.
 

Footnotes

1. Barron D. Why Doctors Are Drowning in Medical School Debt. Scientific American. July 15, 2019.

2. With respect to federal taxation only. Contributions, investment earnings, and distributions may or may not be subject to state taxation. The triple tax advantages are only applicable if the money is used to pay for qualified medical expenses as described in IRS Publication 969.

3. Fidelity Market Sentiment Study presents the findings of a nationwide online survey consisting of 3,012 adults, at least 18 years of age, from which 1,591 respondents qualified as having at least one investment account. The study was fielded April 1-8, 2020, by ENGINE INSIGHTS, an independent research firm not affiliated with Fidelity Investments. The results of this survey may not be representative of all adults meeting the same criteria as those surveyed for this study. For the purposes of this study, the generations are defined as follows: Millennials (aged 24-39 years); Generation X (aged 40-55 years); Baby Boomers (aged 56-74 years).

Mr. Tudor is Vice President, Wealth Planning Consultant at Fidelity Investments.

As COVID-19 continues to threaten the United States and the world, individuals in every profession have been challenged to examine their financial situation. At Fidelity Investments, we recently conducted a national survey asking people how current events have affected their opinions and behaviors when it comes to their money. The results showed that six in 10 Americans are concerned about household finances over the next 6 months. Unfortunately, we’ve seen that even health care professionals have not been financially spared, with salaries or benefits cut or, worse, furloughs and layoffs as hospital systems struggle. I work with many physicians, including gastroenterologists, in my role as a wealth planner for Fidelity Investments and have received quite a few questions related to shoring up family finances during these difficult times.

Luckily, the financial best practices that I share in “good” times ring true even in today’s world, with a few additions given the health and economic risks created by COVID-19.

1. Review your budget. It’s one thing to know that your budget is generally balanced (the dollars you spend are less than the dollars you earn). But it’s worth taking a closer look to see just where those dollars are going. In times of uncertainty, cutting back on expenses that aren’t necessary or don’t provide meaningful value to your life can be worthwhile. If you or your family have lost income because of the pandemic, you might consider these seven simple tips to help boost your cash flow.

2. Tackle (or find relief from) student loan debt. Doctors today graduate medical school with a median debt of just under $195,000.¹ Repaying these loans is daunting, particularly during the COVID-19 crisis. The recent passing of the CARES Act recognizes these difficult times: in fact, it automatically suspended required minimum loan payments and interest accrual on federal student loans until Sept. 30, 2020. This only applies to federal student loans, not private student loans. Beyond this period, if you are still struggling with payments, you may explore the possibility of refinancing, by taking out a lower-interest private loan and using that to pay off student loans (although this may extend the life of your loan). Borrowers could also consider other programs, such as REPAYE (Revised Pay As You Earn) through which your monthly payment tops out at 10% of your monthly income, or Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) if you work for a not-for-profit hospital or other qualifying employer. This program forgives the remaining balance on your direct loans after you have made 120 qualifying monthly payments while working full-time for a qualifying employer.

Additionally, borrowers could look for opportunities to reduce accrued interest, either by refinancing to a lower rate or making payments every 2 weeks rather than once each month.

3. Evaluate your emergency fund. It’s a good idea to keep 3-6 months’ of essential expenses in cash or cash-like investments. If you don’t yet have this 3- to 6-month cushion saved, now is a good time to work to reduce your expenses and stash away any extra cash.

4. Save early and often for retirement. You can borrow money to support many of life’s needs, from housing, to cars, to college. But you can’t borrow for retirement. That is why I encourage clients to put retirement savings at the top of the list, after accounting for day-to-day needs of their families. People often ask me whether it makes sense to continue saving for retirement, often a far-off goal for younger doctors, especially in these uncertain times. My answer? Yes. If you are able to save, continue to save: the earlier you begin to make contributions to your retirement account, and the longer you continue to do so, the more your retirement account(s) have the potential to grow over time.

Another question I receive is whether to take distributions from a retirement account early if you find yourself in a precarious financial situation because of the COVID-19 crisis. The CARES Act provides options allowing Americans to take a withdrawal or loan from a participating retirement plan if you, your spouse, or your dependent have a COVID-19 related illness or you’re experiencing a loss of income related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Try to look at alternative sources of income before tapping your hard-earned retirement savings. If you can find a way to continue saving and avoid drawing down your retirement accounts, your future self will thank you.

Recent market volatility can bring nerves that make it difficult to stay invested. However, as long as your risk tolerance and time horizon reflect your asset allocation – the mix of stock, bonds, and cash (which a financial planner can help with) – you can take comfort in knowing that historically every severe downturn has eventually given way to further growth.

During uncertain times like these, I think the best guidance is to focus on what you can control. The considerations above are a great place to start building a financial plan to solidify you and your family’s future. A Fidelity survey found that 44% of Americans are now working to build up their emergency savings, and one-third (34%) are rethinking how they manage their money because of the COVID-19 crisis.³ Despite the stresses we all face, there is no time like the present to start or revisit your financial plan.
 

Footnotes

1. Barron D. Why Doctors Are Drowning in Medical School Debt. Scientific American. July 15, 2019.

2. With respect to federal taxation only. Contributions, investment earnings, and distributions may or may not be subject to state taxation. The triple tax advantages are only applicable if the money is used to pay for qualified medical expenses as described in IRS Publication 969.

3. Fidelity Market Sentiment Study presents the findings of a nationwide online survey consisting of 3,012 adults, at least 18 years of age, from which 1,591 respondents qualified as having at least one investment account. The study was fielded April 1-8, 2020, by ENGINE INSIGHTS, an independent research firm not affiliated with Fidelity Investments. The results of this survey may not be representative of all adults meeting the same criteria as those surveyed for this study. For the purposes of this study, the generations are defined as follows: Millennials (aged 24-39 years); Generation X (aged 40-55 years); Baby Boomers (aged 56-74 years).

Mr. Tudor is Vice President, Wealth Planning Consultant at Fidelity Investments.

As COVID-19 continues to threaten the United States and the world, individuals in every profession have been challenged to examine their financial situation. At Fidelity Investments, we recently conducted a national survey asking people how current events have affected their opinions and behaviors when it comes to their money. The results showed that six in 10 Americans are concerned about household finances over the next 6 months. Unfortunately, we’ve seen that even health care professionals have not been financially spared, with salaries or benefits cut or, worse, furloughs and layoffs as hospital systems struggle. I work with many physicians, including gastroenterologists, in my role as a wealth planner for Fidelity Investments and have received quite a few questions related to shoring up family finances during these difficult times.

Luckily, the financial best practices that I share in “good” times ring true even in today’s world, with a few additions given the health and economic risks created by COVID-19.

1. Review your budget. It’s one thing to know that your budget is generally balanced (the dollars you spend are less than the dollars you earn). But it’s worth taking a closer look to see just where those dollars are going. In times of uncertainty, cutting back on expenses that aren’t necessary or don’t provide meaningful value to your life can be worthwhile. If you or your family have lost income because of the pandemic, you might consider these seven simple tips to help boost your cash flow.

2. Tackle (or find relief from) student loan debt. Doctors today graduate medical school with a median debt of just under $195,000.¹ Repaying these loans is daunting, particularly during the COVID-19 crisis. The recent passing of the CARES Act recognizes these difficult times: in fact, it automatically suspended required minimum loan payments and interest accrual on federal student loans until Sept. 30, 2020. This only applies to federal student loans, not private student loans. Beyond this period, if you are still struggling with payments, you may explore the possibility of refinancing, by taking out a lower-interest private loan and using that to pay off student loans (although this may extend the life of your loan). Borrowers could also consider other programs, such as REPAYE (Revised Pay As You Earn) through which your monthly payment tops out at 10% of your monthly income, or Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) if you work for a not-for-profit hospital or other qualifying employer. This program forgives the remaining balance on your direct loans after you have made 120 qualifying monthly payments while working full-time for a qualifying employer.

Additionally, borrowers could look for opportunities to reduce accrued interest, either by refinancing to a lower rate or making payments every 2 weeks rather than once each month.

3. Evaluate your emergency fund. It’s a good idea to keep 3-6 months’ of essential expenses in cash or cash-like investments. If you don’t yet have this 3- to 6-month cushion saved, now is a good time to work to reduce your expenses and stash away any extra cash.

4. Save early and often for retirement. You can borrow money to support many of life’s needs, from housing, to cars, to college. But you can’t borrow for retirement. That is why I encourage clients to put retirement savings at the top of the list, after accounting for day-to-day needs of their families. People often ask me whether it makes sense to continue saving for retirement, often a far-off goal for younger doctors, especially in these uncertain times. My answer? Yes. If you are able to save, continue to save: the earlier you begin to make contributions to your retirement account, and the longer you continue to do so, the more your retirement account(s) have the potential to grow over time.

Another question I receive is whether to take distributions from a retirement account early if you find yourself in a precarious financial situation because of the COVID-19 crisis. The CARES Act provides options allowing Americans to take a withdrawal or loan from a participating retirement plan if you, your spouse, or your dependent have a COVID-19 related illness or you’re experiencing a loss of income related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Try to look at alternative sources of income before tapping your hard-earned retirement savings. If you can find a way to continue saving and avoid drawing down your retirement accounts, your future self will thank you.

Recent market volatility can bring nerves that make it difficult to stay invested. However, as long as your risk tolerance and time horizon reflect your asset allocation – the mix of stock, bonds, and cash (which a financial planner can help with) – you can take comfort in knowing that historically every severe downturn has eventually given way to further growth.

During uncertain times like these, I think the best guidance is to focus on what you can control. The considerations above are a great place to start building a financial plan to solidify you and your family’s future. A Fidelity survey found that 44% of Americans are now working to build up their emergency savings, and one-third (34%) are rethinking how they manage their money because of the COVID-19 crisis.³ Despite the stresses we all face, there is no time like the present to start or revisit your financial plan.
 

Footnotes

1. Barron D. Why Doctors Are Drowning in Medical School Debt. Scientific American. July 15, 2019.

2. With respect to federal taxation only. Contributions, investment earnings, and distributions may or may not be subject to state taxation. The triple tax advantages are only applicable if the money is used to pay for qualified medical expenses as described in IRS Publication 969.

3. Fidelity Market Sentiment Study presents the findings of a nationwide online survey consisting of 3,012 adults, at least 18 years of age, from which 1,591 respondents qualified as having at least one investment account. The study was fielded April 1-8, 2020, by ENGINE INSIGHTS, an independent research firm not affiliated with Fidelity Investments. The results of this survey may not be representative of all adults meeting the same criteria as those surveyed for this study. For the purposes of this study, the generations are defined as follows: Millennials (aged 24-39 years); Generation X (aged 40-55 years); Baby Boomers (aged 56-74 years).

Mr. Tudor is Vice President, Wealth Planning Consultant at Fidelity Investments.

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for convalescent plasma on Aug. 23, opening up more access for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Convalescent plasma contains antibodies from the blood of recovered COVID-19 patients, which can be used to treat people with severe infections. Convalescent plasma has been used to treat patients for other infectious diseases. The authorization allows the plasma to be distributed in the United States and administered by health care providers.

“COVID-19 convalescent plasma is safe and shows promising efficacy,” Stephen Hahn, MD, commissioner of the FDA, said during a press briefing with President Donald Trump.

In April, the FDA approved a program to test convalescent plasma in COVID-19 patients at the Mayo Clinic, followed by other institutions. More than 90,000 patients have enrolled in the program, and 70,000 have received the treatment, Dr. Hahn said.

The data indicate that the plasma can reduce mortality in patients by 35%, particularly if patients are treated within 3 days of being diagnosed. Those who have benefited the most were under age 80 and not on artificial respiration, Alex Azar, the secretary for the Department of Health & Human Services, said during the briefing.

“We dream, in drug development, of something like a 35% mortality reduction,” he said.

But top scientists pushed back against the announcement.

Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, professor of molecular medicine, and executive vice president of Scripps Research, said the data the FDA are relying on did not come from the rigorous randomized, double-blind placebo trials that best determine if a treatment is successful.

Still, convalescent plasma is “one more tool added to the arsenal” of combating COVID-19, Mr. Azar said. The FDA will continue to study convalescent plasma as a COVID-19 treatment, Dr. Hahn added.

“We’re waiting for more data. We’re going to continue to gather data,” Dr. Hahn said during the briefing, but the current results meet FDA criteria for issuing an emergency use authorization.

Convalescent plasma “may be effective in lessening the severity or shortening the length of COVID-19 illness in some hospitalized patients,” according to the FDA announcement. Potential side effects include allergic reactions, transfusion-transmitted infections, and transfusion-associated lung injury.

“We’ve seen a great deal of demand for this from doctors around the country,” Dr. Hahn said during the briefing. “The EUA … allows us to continue that and meet that demand.”

Dr. Topol, however, said it appears Trump and the FDA are playing politics with science.

“There’s no evidence to support any survival benefit,” Dr. Topol said on Twitter. “Two days ago [the] FDA’s website stated there was no evidence for an EUA.”

The American Red Cross and other blood centers put out a national call for blood donors in July, especially for patients who have recovered from COVID-19. Mr. Azar and Dr. Hahn emphasized the need for blood donors during the press briefing.

“If you donate plasma, you could save a life,” Mr. Azar said.

The study has not been peer reviewed and did not include a placebo group for comparison, STAT reported.

Last week several health officials warned that the scientific data were too weak to warrant an emergency authorization, the New York Times reported.

A version of this originally appeared on WebMD.com.

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for convalescent plasma on Aug. 23, opening up more access for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Convalescent plasma contains antibodies from the blood of recovered COVID-19 patients, which can be used to treat people with severe infections. Convalescent plasma has been used to treat patients for other infectious diseases. The authorization allows the plasma to be distributed in the United States and administered by health care providers.

“COVID-19 convalescent plasma is safe and shows promising efficacy,” Stephen Hahn, MD, commissioner of the FDA, said during a press briefing with President Donald Trump.

In April, the FDA approved a program to test convalescent plasma in COVID-19 patients at the Mayo Clinic, followed by other institutions. More than 90,000 patients have enrolled in the program, and 70,000 have received the treatment, Dr. Hahn said.

The data indicate that the plasma can reduce mortality in patients by 35%, particularly if patients are treated within 3 days of being diagnosed. Those who have benefited the most were under age 80 and not on artificial respiration, Alex Azar, the secretary for the Department of Health & Human Services, said during the briefing.

“We dream, in drug development, of something like a 35% mortality reduction,” he said.

But top scientists pushed back against the announcement.

Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, professor of molecular medicine, and executive vice president of Scripps Research, said the data the FDA are relying on did not come from the rigorous randomized, double-blind placebo trials that best determine if a treatment is successful.

Still, convalescent plasma is “one more tool added to the arsenal” of combating COVID-19, Mr. Azar said. The FDA will continue to study convalescent plasma as a COVID-19 treatment, Dr. Hahn added.

“We’re waiting for more data. We’re going to continue to gather data,” Dr. Hahn said during the briefing, but the current results meet FDA criteria for issuing an emergency use authorization.

Convalescent plasma “may be effective in lessening the severity or shortening the length of COVID-19 illness in some hospitalized patients,” according to the FDA announcement. Potential side effects include allergic reactions, transfusion-transmitted infections, and transfusion-associated lung injury.

“We’ve seen a great deal of demand for this from doctors around the country,” Dr. Hahn said during the briefing. “The EUA … allows us to continue that and meet that demand.”

Dr. Topol, however, said it appears Trump and the FDA are playing politics with science.

“There’s no evidence to support any survival benefit,” Dr. Topol said on Twitter. “Two days ago [the] FDA’s website stated there was no evidence for an EUA.”

The American Red Cross and other blood centers put out a national call for blood donors in July, especially for patients who have recovered from COVID-19. Mr. Azar and Dr. Hahn emphasized the need for blood donors during the press briefing.

“If you donate plasma, you could save a life,” Mr. Azar said.

The study has not been peer reviewed and did not include a placebo group for comparison, STAT reported.

Last week several health officials warned that the scientific data were too weak to warrant an emergency authorization, the New York Times reported.

A version of this originally appeared on WebMD.com.

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for convalescent plasma on Aug. 23, opening up more access for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Convalescent plasma contains antibodies from the blood of recovered COVID-19 patients, which can be used to treat people with severe infections. Convalescent plasma has been used to treat patients for other infectious diseases. The authorization allows the plasma to be distributed in the United States and administered by health care providers.

“COVID-19 convalescent plasma is safe and shows promising efficacy,” Stephen Hahn, MD, commissioner of the FDA, said during a press briefing with President Donald Trump.

In April, the FDA approved a program to test convalescent plasma in COVID-19 patients at the Mayo Clinic, followed by other institutions. More than 90,000 patients have enrolled in the program, and 70,000 have received the treatment, Dr. Hahn said.

The data indicate that the plasma can reduce mortality in patients by 35%, particularly if patients are treated within 3 days of being diagnosed. Those who have benefited the most were under age 80 and not on artificial respiration, Alex Azar, the secretary for the Department of Health & Human Services, said during the briefing.

“We dream, in drug development, of something like a 35% mortality reduction,” he said.

But top scientists pushed back against the announcement.

Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, professor of molecular medicine, and executive vice president of Scripps Research, said the data the FDA are relying on did not come from the rigorous randomized, double-blind placebo trials that best determine if a treatment is successful.

Still, convalescent plasma is “one more tool added to the arsenal” of combating COVID-19, Mr. Azar said. The FDA will continue to study convalescent plasma as a COVID-19 treatment, Dr. Hahn added.

“We’re waiting for more data. We’re going to continue to gather data,” Dr. Hahn said during the briefing, but the current results meet FDA criteria for issuing an emergency use authorization.

Convalescent plasma “may be effective in lessening the severity or shortening the length of COVID-19 illness in some hospitalized patients,” according to the FDA announcement. Potential side effects include allergic reactions, transfusion-transmitted infections, and transfusion-associated lung injury.

“We’ve seen a great deal of demand for this from doctors around the country,” Dr. Hahn said during the briefing. “The EUA … allows us to continue that and meet that demand.”

Dr. Topol, however, said it appears Trump and the FDA are playing politics with science.

“There’s no evidence to support any survival benefit,” Dr. Topol said on Twitter. “Two days ago [the] FDA’s website stated there was no evidence for an EUA.”

The American Red Cross and other blood centers put out a national call for blood donors in July, especially for patients who have recovered from COVID-19. Mr. Azar and Dr. Hahn emphasized the need for blood donors during the press briefing.

“If you donate plasma, you could save a life,” Mr. Azar said.

The study has not been peer reviewed and did not include a placebo group for comparison, STAT reported.

Last week several health officials warned that the scientific data were too weak to warrant an emergency authorization, the New York Times reported.

A version of this originally appeared on WebMD.com.